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: > > https://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: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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. -- https://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 https://suburbia.net/~fun/ Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: martinc[SMTP:martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:31 AM To: 'FG@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 https://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.... > > FG@AOL.com > (please continue to use my FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:43 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:44 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:46 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:46 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:47 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:49 PM To: FG@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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:03 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:05 PM To: spctoast@extremezone.com Cc: FG@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: FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://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: FG >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: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: https://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 ==----- https://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 5:42 AM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@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. FG@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: FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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." https://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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com ---------- From: Barthaman@aol.com[SMTP:Barthaman@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:15 PM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 6:20 PM To: FG@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: FG@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: FG@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 ==----- https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG@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: FG@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: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://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 > https://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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 1:44 PM To: RBCFAdmin@aol.com Cc: FG@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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm On AOL: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://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: FG@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: >https://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 https://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: FG@hotmail.com Subject: what is new dear glaysher pls say what is new to bahai faith thanks alias ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://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 https://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: >https://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 https://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: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 FG@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." https://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: https://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: > https://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 https://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: FG@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 https://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 https://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: FG@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 https://www.boston.com and use keyword ARCHIVES ---------- From: Wired News Staff[SMTP:newsfeedback@wired.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:29 AM To: FG@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: > > https://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 https://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 >FG@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." >https://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: >https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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 https://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; FG@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. > https://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; FG@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; FG@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: FG@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: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, > talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) > Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fran Baker > To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 4:01 PM To: Barthaman@aol.com Cc: FG@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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: RobertNik@aol.com[SMTP:RobertNik@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 03, 1998 4:01 AM To: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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: FG@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 https://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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 8:22 AM To: FG@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: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 8:24 AM To: FG@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; FG@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: FG@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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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: FG@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 FG@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: >https://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: https://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: FG@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, https://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: FG > 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: FG@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: FG@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 > https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 >> https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:19 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: Votetaker - talk.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG 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: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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; FG@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; FG@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: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 ; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 ; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG@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: > >>https://home.earthlink.net/~centurion88 >>https://www.io.com/~jack88 >>https://www.jewwatch.com/ >>https://www.melvig.org/ >>https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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; FG@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; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/ Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:28 PM To: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: >https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG 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: >https://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: https://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: >>https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG 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: >https://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: https://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: >>https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at https://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: https://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; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 ; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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 ; FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG 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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: https://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: https://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: FG[SMTP:FG@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: FG 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 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: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 1998 10:39 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: UVV Admin List Subject: Questionnaire received: talk.religion.bahai Ref: talk.religion.bahai Your questionnaire was received and is on file. Please be patient while we locate a votetaker for your proposal. This may take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks depending on the number of current votes in progress. As the active CFVs conclude, a votetaker will eventually become available to handle your proposal. You can monitor the UVV Daily Status report in "news.groups" to see when and who is assigned as the votetaker for your proposal. -- Bill Aten Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers UseNet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page: ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 1998 10:48 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > In email, the proponents have agreed to delete and replace > the passage in the following way: Thanks Fred. I think it is big of you to conceded this point as you have. I think all of you have been wonderful, and I hope and pray that the result of the vote is rewarding. TRB as it looks now will be a very good NG indeed. -- 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, November 08, 1998 10:53 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > 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. I've posted an article quoting the passage. -- 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, November 08, 1998 10:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > 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 When I post, I email myself a copy and stash it away from my emailed copy, which means I don't have a copy of the actual posting, only my original. The text is the same, of course, but the headers differ. I'll attach my copy. But I am concerned you and dejanews haven't got it. Do you think SRB tricked me somehow? If so, please don't mention it until after the vote, but I might have to do some quiet investigation into this. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Poll for talk.religion.bahai - important change to proposal Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:24:37 +1000 From: Ron House CC: johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai 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. The proposal is being discussed in news.groups right now. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:43 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai I've noticed David Lawrence has posted the message below to soc.religion.bahai at least 6 times since November 2nd. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm --------- cmsg newgroup soc.religion.bahai moderated more options Author: David C Lawrence Email: group-admin@isc.org Date: 1998/11/02 Forums: soc.religion.bahai more headers author profile view thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- soc.religion.bahai is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 236:48 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 24 Apr 92. For your newsgroups file: soc.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. (Moderated) The charter, culled from the call for votes: The group will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and sharing information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i Faith. Prior to its formation there was a good amount of traffic on this topic in other newsgroups; this group provides a "single point of contact" for such discussion. Examples of posts that fall within the group's scope are: * The Baha'i Faith's relation to other religions * Relevance of Baha'i principles to current world events/problems * Analysis of particular scriptural passages or themes * General Q & A The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a book reference) may also be rejected. Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise ratio. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 7:31 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Ron, You mentioned last week on news.groups that soc.religion.bahai had posted your message announcing NSA member John Walker as one of the proponents for talk.religion.bahai. I still can't find it on my server under srb nor on www.dejanews.com I would think that would be legitimate news they'd want to share with their readers, or ought to be shared.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 7:42 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Ron, It seems to me people on news.groups should know this hasn't happened right away. Their recalling the deceit on this matter ought to help when it becomes time to request rmgrouping srb.... You might want to note David Lawrence's several postings to srb on at least dejanews.com Fred -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 2:49 PM Subject: Re: srb & John Walker >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> 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 > >When I post, I email myself a copy and stash it away from my emailed >copy, which means I don't have a copy of the actual posting, only my >original. The text is the same, of course, but the headers differ. I'll >attach my copy. But I am concerned you and dejanews haven't got it. Do >you think SRB tricked me somehow? If so, please don't mention it until >after the vote, but I might have to do some quiet investigation into >this. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Subject: > Poll for talk.religion.bahai - important change to >proposal > Date: > Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:24:37 +1000 > From: > Ron House > CC: > johnwalker@ozemail.com.au >Newsgroups: > soc.religion.bahai > > >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. > >The proposal is being discussed in news.groups right now. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:23 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Since it's been a little complicated, I've posted a full copy of the RFD reflecting the recent changes on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm The file contains all three versions that have evolved during the discussion of this 3rd proposal for talk.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:33 AM Subject: REVISED - The Bahai Technique During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own: Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992: "The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. 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 life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself, which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the Truth." Ron House, November 14, 1997: "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." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Frederick Glaysher, June 1998: "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." Fran Baker, May 1998: "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, June 12, 1998: "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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998: "If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty] were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in their condemnations of their fellow believers, I would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've "got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not character assassination by innuendo, what is?" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson18.htm Gibro28W, October 12, 1998: "In summary, the biggest problem, as I see it, is that most Baha'is don't take criticism seriously--they tune it out as "negative" or "harmful to spiritual growth." This selfish attitude is very stupid. First of all, Baha'is entice people to join them. When they do, they indoctrinate them until they think like the group. But as soon as a red flare of doubt goes up in the convert's mind, they're cordoned off by the group and reminded of their "spiritual" obligations in the name of Baha'u'llah or the "Covenant." If left unresolved and doubt gives vent to prolonged criticism, the convert is sent packing or is kicked out. What we have here is a broken family that had failed to truly listen to the needs of its members in the first place." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb73.htm Barthaman on September 14, 1998: 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. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb66.htm Cf. K. Paul Johnson's general reflections on coercive techniques https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson21.htm And LaAeterna's method of silencing opponents https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb65.htm This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technieque.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:35 AM Subject: soc.religion.bahai - Brief Quotations Kent Johnson: "It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously unjust." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm Ron House: "I think the following is a clear case of malicious rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm Timothy Mulligan: "(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those SRB moderators." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm RobertNik: "these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm Bruce Burrill: "What are Baha'i afraid of?" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm Zuteflute: "Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm YU ZIR: "But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to address." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm Matthew Cromer: "The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles which they agree with...." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm Melissa Boyer Kafes: "For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm Harold Shinsato: "It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm Laeterna: "To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was putting it mildly indeed." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm Guy Macon" "Please explain which portion of the charter the following post violates." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm Robin Peters: "I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the face of consistent censorship." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm jgoldberg: "I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. " https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under soc.religion.bahai censorship. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:39 AM Subject: alt.religion.bahai - FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@egroups.com November 10, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@egroups.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access alt.religion.bahai. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL) Keyword, Newsgroups, then search for alt.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@egroups.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum, the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith give reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm September 9,1998: America Online (AOL) places a Bahai-inspired TOS against Frederick Glaysher; AOL removes the TOS after considering both sides of the issue, i.e., Bahai messages attacking and threatening him: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm September 14, 1998: soc.religion.bahai extends its ban on Frederick Glaysher's signature file to include all signature files and URLs from all posters, allowing only email addresses and the name of the poster: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srbban.htm October 14, 1998: Soc.religion.bahai moderator Bill Hyman backbites and casts aspersions on proponent Ron House and attempts to undermine the new support for the "neutral" RFD: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb67.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RFD for the 3rd interest poll for talk.religion.bahai was posted September 28, 1998; reposted on October 27, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@egroups.com This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:43 AM Subject: REPOST - To the UHJ July 24, 1998 From: FG 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: As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, always courting the President and other members of the government, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within the Bahai community and administration. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/To-UHJ1.htm To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under Bahai-Discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if you will, of Bahai censorship? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 10:01 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > It seems to me people on news.groups should > know this hasn't happened right away. Their recalling > the deceit on this matter ought to help when it becomes > time to request rmgrouping srb.... You might want to > note David Lawrence's several postings to srb on at > least dejanews.com > Well I don't KNOW that it hasn't happened. I looked on srb and saw my article. Our news server hasn't ever made a mistake like that in the past, to my knowledge, and I can't imagine how the moderators could fool me alone, I just held it out as a possibility. If the vote fails, then would be the time to look for evidence re rmgrouping srb. Right now, anything negative will lose votes, not gain them. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:11 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Is it on dejanews.com? -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:55 PM Subject: Re: srb & John Walker >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> It seems to me people on news.groups should >> know this hasn't happened right away. Their recalling >> the deceit on this matter ought to help when it becomes >> time to request rmgrouping srb.... You might want to >> note David Lawrence's several postings to srb on at >> least dejanews.com >> >Well I don't KNOW that it hasn't happened. I looked on srb and saw my >article. Our news server hasn't ever made a mistake like that in the >past, to my knowledge, and I can't imagine how the moderators could fool >me alone, I just held it out as a possibility. If the vote fails, then >would be the time to look for evidence re rmgrouping srb. Right now, >anything negative will lose votes, not gain them. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:31 AM To: Pat Kohli Subject: Re: REVISED - The Bahai Technique I have not read your message. Please do not email me directly. Post your opinions on arb where everyone may read them. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Pat Kohli To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:23 AM Subject: Re: REVISED - The Bahai Technique >Fred, Allah'u'Abha! > >When I signed my card, a teacher warned me that my greatest >disappointment with the Baha'i Faith would be members of the community. >Surprisingly, I've found over the past 38 years, even non-Baha'is can be >manipulative hypocrites. Broadcasting the complaint doesn't solve the >problem. Manipulative hypocrites think you are talking about them when >you aren't and don't know that you are talking about them when you are. > >May I suggest a three-pronged approach? 1) Stop complaining about your >victimization at their hands - it reinforces the cycle setting the stage >for more of the same, and you are stepping into the punch. 2) If you >have a complaint, go to the person or institution responsible for that >area - airing your honest concerns out for the entire community is like >hanging up a 'kick me' sign for the manipulative hypocrite. 3) If you >have already observed someone engaging in manipulative hypocrisy, try to >be pleasant with them and avoid meaningful discussion in their presence >(find someone else to talk to). > >(humorous tone on) If you stick my 3 pronged approach in the next >version of 'the manipulative hypocrite technique', I will publicly >complain about it! (humorous tone off) > >Blessings! >Pat > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:32 AM To: Pat Kohli Subject: Re: alt.religion.bahai - FAQ Please do not include me in an All Reply. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Pat Kohli Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bahai-faith@egroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:09 AM Subject: Re: alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >Salutations! > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for >> Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@egroups.com >> November 10, 1998 >> This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >(snip) >> >> Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to >> bahai-faith@egroups.com also allows people with only email >> access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. >> >> Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or >> www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, >> including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access >> alt.religion.bahai. > >Well, that is great! Good job! > >> Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or >> repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of >> talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup >> on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. >> >> Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL) >> Keyword, Newsgroups, then search for alt.religion.bahai >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >> NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. >> >> Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed >> newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" >> >> ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the >> talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy >> of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to >> access talk.religion.bahai. > >Question #1A How many people who can't get on the web are likely to get >a 'major' newsgroup heirarchy. How much more available is talk. over >alt.? > >(snip) >> >> Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" >> >> ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are >> continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to >> soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >Question 3.1A Wasn't that the answer for the a.r.b question? > >> ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and >> religious conscience. >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >Question 3.2A Since arb is already on the net, won't trb be essentially >arb cloned? That redundancy would be a waste of technological resources >(possibly inconsistent w/ the teachings) > >Question 3.2B When I sent the following message, it appears not to have >been posted. Computer glitch or censorship on arb? >-----Unposted message copied from outbox -------- >"Subject: Dr. Beckwith and "Baha'i" > Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 00:01:41 -0500 > From: Pat Kohli > Organization: Kohli Family > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai > > >Greetings! > >In 1985 Dr. Francis Beckwith published a pamphlet which criticized the >faith for revisions to J. E. Esslemont's "Baha'u'llah and the New Era". >The Baha'i reponse is at >https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/beckwith.html > >Has anyone read the pamhlet, understood the issues and be willing to >comment? > >Blessings! >Pat" >--------------end copied message ----------------- >> ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] >> >> Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" >> >> ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place >> here] > >Who would ever ask that? I don't care if the srb moderator(s) stands on >his hands butt naked and spits purple lira. Since I don't know of >opposition I don't ask why. Even if anyone knew of 'oppostion' to trb, >it would be irrelevant to arb. > >> Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and >> conscience?" >> >> ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for >> other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice >> stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum, >> the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai >> and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai >> Faith give reason for concern. > >#5A How does this pertain to arb? > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >> Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > >Maybe I'm catching on. Is the purpose of arb to organize the creation >of trb? If that is the case, may I suggest we just proceed w/ trb? > >Blessings! >Pat > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:49 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Just checked. Nothing on dejanews.com, nor my server using Netscape instead of IE4 to get a fresh reading of srb.... I don't intend to bring up rmgrouping srb until after the next manufactured defeat becomes public.... -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:55 PM Subject: Re: srb & John Walker >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> It seems to me people on news.groups should >> know this hasn't happened right away. Their recalling >> the deceit on this matter ought to help when it becomes >> time to request rmgrouping srb.... You might want to >> note David Lawrence's several postings to srb on at >> least dejanews.com >> >Well I don't KNOW that it hasn't happened. I looked on srb and saw my >article. Our news server hasn't ever made a mistake like that in the >past, to my knowledge, and I can't imagine how the moderators could fool >me alone, I just held it out as a possibility. If the vote fails, then >would be the time to look for evidence re rmgrouping srb. Right now, >anything negative will lose votes, not gain them. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Ron House wrote in message <36492B3D.116FF490@usq.edu.au>... >Joe Bernstein wrote: > >> It has been a joy watching this debate turn out so very unlike the first. >> My thanks to the proponents, and to the other participants. -- JLB > >Thanks Joe. It is in no small part due to the great help we've received >on this newsgroup. I'd like to second that! And I thank all the news.groupies who have participated or contributed. Special thanks to Kathy Pascoe, Jay Denebeim, and Joe Bernstein who have been very patient and helpful. Thanks too to Frank Baker for reviving the idea of a neutral, technical RFD, and everyone's willingness to work and compromise together for a RFD we can all support. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 7:30 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: srb & John Walker >I don't intend to bring up rmgrouping srb until >after the next manufactured defeat becomes >public.... I should mention too that I've been discussing rmgrouping with a couple of news.groupies who think it ought to be possible to get it through after this vote.... More later.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: Abdu'l-Baha on conscience & liberty "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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 7:22 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: srb & John Walker Seeing's believing, as they say, especially in this case.... -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 11:35 PM Subject: Re: srb & John Walker >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Is it on dejanews.com? >> >Not that I could see, but they _do_ miss articles. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:41 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] Chronicle of Higher Education art. -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 12:29 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Chronicle of Higher Education art. Those on this list might be interested to know of the article by Burton Bollag in the current *Chronicle of Higher Education,* Nov. 13 1998, on the closure of the Baha'i Open University in Iran. You might also be interested in some background as to how the article got written. When the crackdown on the Open University in Iran began in early October '98, it occurred to me that this was an academic issue, since college professors (even if purged ones) were being arrested for teaching students! I did three things: I contacted my professional organization, the Middle East Studies Association, about writing a human rights protest letter to the government of Iran protesting this action. (I believe a letter is forthcoming). I circulated a petition throughout the Net, to usenet groups and elsewhere, which garnered hundreds of grass roots signatures by academics and others at institutions from Harvard to the University of Michigan protesting the crackdown on the Open University and the exclusion of Iranian Baha'is from university in general. (This I sent by land mail to President Khatami, Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, and the Iranian ambassador to the UN, along with the signatures). Third, I contacted the Chronicle of Higher Education and told them I thought that they had a duty to report on this issue. They put me in touch with Burton Bollag, who reports on Iran for them, and I sent him all the information from the Office of External Affairs and told him how to contact the Baha'is there, as well as sending him my analysis of the situation from H-Bahai. (The sidebar that says: "Some observers say the raids may be part of a power struggle between conservatives and the country's moderate president, Muhammad Khatam" is a reference to my analysis.) This week, in the November 13 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bollag's article appeared. I believe the article contains one inaccuracy. It says that none of the Baha'i professors arrested agreed to sign the declaration that henceforth the Open University no longer existed. In fact, internal Baha'i documents issued at the time revealed that of the 32, all but 7 were released very quickly, precisely because they did sign the statement. It was the 7 who refused. Who told Bollag all had refused to sign is unclear to me. I hope it was not a deliberate piece of misinformation. I have sometimes been accused of lacking in objectivity. I am very glad to admit that I have very strong views on some issues. One of these issues is freedom of conscience and speech, freedoms that the Iranian Baha'is have had abridged in the most monstrous fashion, by a theocracy. All religious regimes have a problem with freedom of speech, which is why separation of religion and state is a fundamental basis of true liberty. I'm just one person, and don't have many personal resources, but I'm glad to have responded in a small way to this outrageous denial of basic human rights. I urge all my friends to take the initiative and engage the grass roots similarly. Much can be accomplished that way, if initiative is not quashed. The grass roots are the life of any organization, any movement. Mowing them down leads to stagnation. When I was a Baha'i, a professor of Middle East at a major university and director of its Middle East Center, I was never contacted by the Open University for my help and had no idea it existed. The External Affairs Office likewise only ever called on me once for help with regard to the persecution of the Iranian Baha'is. I would have been glad to help, but felt constrained, as most Baha'is do, not to act until called upon. Ironically, I now feel free and liberated to 'volunteer' my help on this human rights issue. I'd be glad to help the Open University, too, but I doubt my help is wanted. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:42 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 1 -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dean Betts Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 5:19 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 1 I can only reply briefly to Mr. Terry's comments, many of which seem to me polemical (rather than apologetic :-) and which contain serious misreadings of the article as well as displaying a dismaying lack of knowledge about the history and texts of the Baha'i faith, both in English and in Arabic and Persian. In many instances, moreover, Mr. Terry simply says at greater length what I said in my article, giving further credence to my points. >>> >>>INTRODUCTION >>> >>>Dr. Cole begins his article by refering to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and to >>>Scientology by way of introducing what he calls "social control mechanisms >>>in the American Baha'i community." The point of the references was stated as being that some US religious groups existed for a fair amount of time before social scientists took an interest in them, and so remained relatively little known in the literature. It is not a matter of 'grouping' the US Baha'i community, which is quite diverse, with anything. >>Dr. Cole has not demonstrated, in the entire course of this article, that >>>the Baha'i Faith has any of the attributes of a modern "cult," and indeed, >>>Dr. Udo Schaefer has carefully studied this question, and come to the >>>conclusion that the Baha'i Faith cannot be considered a "cult" except >>>according to the once general definition, namely "a system of religious >>>beliefs and ritual." This is because Dr. Cole did not set out to demonstrate that the Baha'i faith is a "cult" tout court. There are, however, some cult-like elements in its governance: shunning, threats of shunning, prohibition on publicly criticizing leaders, prepublication censorship, surveillance and informing on adherents by others. But these are "nested," and not necessarily spread uniformly throughout the community. (Most Baha'is are not writers, e.g., and so are relatively unaffected by censorship practices.) >>> First of all, virtually all of the regulations to which Dr. >>>Cole refers were enjoined by the Founder of the Baha'i Faith, and enforced >>>by His successors-- 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of >>>Justice--in their turns as worldwide leaders of the religion. Actually, almost none of these control mechanisms existed in the time of Baha'u'llah, nor are they mentioned in his writings, and very few existed in the time of `Abdu'l-Baha. However, since my article simply explained the "regulations" and cited the textual evidence and social practices involved, I don't actually see what the objection is. >>>What Dr. >>>Cole calls "mandatory prepublication censorship of everything Baha'is >>>publish about their religion" is a policy which seems to have originated >>>with Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith, Who personally reviewed >>>at least two historical works compiled and written by adherents prior to >>>their publication. This is ridiculous. Baha'is published freely in Baha'ullah's time and there is no evidence to the contrary. That Baha'u'llah agreed to look at a couple of books was his favor to the author, not a kind of censorship; there is no evidence whatsoever that he even so much as commented on what he read. "Literature review" was vastly expanded by the UHJ in 1972. I say explicitly that prepublication censorship has been a Baha'i practice for almost a century, and note that while it is called "temporary" by Baha'i leaders, it appears to be being extended and widened, and to be envisaged as continuing for centuries. >>>It might be noted that prepublication >>>review is required by publishers and editors everywhere, and that the >>>criteria which govern academic review are much more rigorous and exclusive >>>than those which characterize Baha'i literature review. Mr. Terry, this is a simple falsehood. Baha'i prepublication censorship is demanded of Baha'i authors who publish at non-Baha'i publishers. Random House only vets my work if I publish with Random House. If Random House turns me down I can go to Knopf. If I am a Baha'i and the Baha'i censors turn me down, I simply cannot publish anywhere. There is no comparison between an editorial process of a publisher and a system of prepublication censorship. Moreover, academic presses have in fact published articles about the Baha'i faith that would not have been allowed to appear by the Baha'i authorities, so your second statement is also false. >>>Dr. Cole alleges that "blackballing" is one of the "social control >>>mechanisms" employed in the American Baha'i community. He does not define >>>this term, but we understand it to refer to boycott, ostracism, and the >>>exclusion from membership by casting a negative vote. There are no reported >>>cases of such behavior in the American Baha'i community. Persons whom the Baha'i administration do not like are not invited to speak at major Baha'i venues. They are not appointed to the 'Institution of the Learned.' They are often harassed by the administration with threats of sanctions. I have a number of documented such cases. There are no "reported" cases of such behavior because the censorship apparatus does not allow the cases to be reported. >>>Dr. Cole has >>>alleged that the American Baha'i community has adopted certain behaviors >>>which effect nominations and which resemble campaigning. If this is the >>>case, then these behaviors are patently inconsistent with the uncompromising >>>Baha'i principles pertaining to this process. In other words, if such >>>behaviors exist, they represent abberations and transgressions rather than >>>realizations and establishments of Baha'i principles. That is for you to decide. I am simply reporting what I see as the actual situation. The article begins by saying I am not reporting ideals or essences, only what actually happens. >>>Perhaps the most alarming of the "social control mechanisms" alleged by Dr. >>>Cole to be employed in the governance of the American Baha'i community are >>>"administrative expulsion...shunning, and threats of shunning." It must be >>>noted once more that Dr. Cole does not employ the vocabulary used by Baha'is >>>to delineate particular policies and regulations. Virtually every community >>>has requirements for membership. But not all communities have a system of shunning. That is, someone is declared socially dead and no member may be in contact with the one shunned, and if anyone does contact him or her, that person is then also shunned. Among US religions this is rare. The Jehovah's Witnesses do it and the Old Order Amish do it, maybe some very conservative Mennonites. Baha'u'llah called for the excommunication of Covenant-breakers >>>(English translation of the Arabic "naqazin"), and indicated that >>>Covenant-breaking is a spiritual disease. Baha'u'llah never did any such thing. Baha'is were in contact with Azalis all through their history, and in fact is is well known in Iran that there have been Baha'i-Azali marriages. The practice of shunning did not begin until `Abdu'l-Baha's time, and then it was used in only two cases: schismatics and persons guilty of peculation from the Baha'is. In recent years it has been extended as a threat at least to simple disagreement with the Baha'i administration's party line. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:44 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 2 -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dean Betts Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 1:21 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 2 >>>Furthermore, the excommunication of Covenant-breakers is not a temporary >>>policy carried out by rogue Baha'i administrators, as Dr. Cole seems to >>>imply. I don't imply any such thing. However, it is not the case that the practice of shunning goes back to Baha'u'llah in its current form, and the uses to which it has been put have in fact changed over time. It has certainly become more widely used and more Draconian, at least as a threat, in the 1990s. >>>excommunication is in >>>the Book, and hence it is entirely beyond the mandate of the Universal House >>>of Justice to alter this law. You could not prove it was "in the Book" to save your life. It isn't. >>>Furthermore, he has misrepresented those regulations through >>>his use of misleading terminology and his citation of unreliable sources. "Excommunication" does not mean "shunning" to most English speakers; "review" does not mean prepublication censorship. My terminology is clear and is *not* misleading. I cited *Lights of Guidance,* and other Baha'i texts as well as the best academic scholarship. To say that I cited "unreliable" sources is simply an falsehood. >>>If he does not approve of these regulations then he should state his >>>objections openly; his affirmation, that "the movement's scriptures are >>>liberal in their orientation" and his implication that these particular >>>regulations--which he conceives to be illiberal--derive from "conservative >>>Baha'i leaders" rather than from Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi >>>Effendi is simply incorrect. Mr. Terry simply does not know much about the evolution of his own religion, the various and differing policies of its leaders, and the changes that have occurred over time, nor about the differing policies of national Baha'i leaderships. He therefore wishes to construct a seamless whole out of something that is disparate. He is simply mistaken. None of the control mechanisms I discussed existed in the time of Baha'u'llah. None. Besides, I don't know why he speaks in terms of "objecting." I simply described the situation, and Mr. Terry has affirmed the truth of my description, simply providing more details. >>>It has been demonstrated that all of the >>>regulations referred to by Dr. Cole were established by Baha'u'llah and His >>>appointed interpreters. You haven't established any such thing. >>>While Dr. Cole states that many of his "remarks >>>cannot be generalized to other national communities, and concern mainly the >>>United States" the regulations discussed in this article are enforced >>>throughout the worldwide Baha'i community. Many Baha'i academics who read the article objected that some practices in the US seemed more corrupt and Draconian than was true in their own countries. >>>Shoghi Effendi and the >>>Universal House of Justice have affirmed that the liberal and conservative >>>points of view have nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith. This may be good doctrine but it is sociological nonsense. A liberal-conservative divide is obvious in all major American denominations and religions and it is present in the Baha'i community as well. Denying it won't make it disappear, and attempting to prevent social scientists from discussing it is just obscurantism. >>>To begin with, >>>Dr. Cole alleges that the Baha'i Faith was founded in 1863 by Baha'u'llah. >>>According to authoritative Baha'i sources, Baha'u'llah made His first >>>declaration of prophethood (to a few individuals) in the year 1863. >>>However, according to those same sources, the Baha'i Faith did not begin in >>>1863 but in 1844, and its first Central Figure was not Mirza Husayn 'Ali >>>Nuri Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), but rather, Siyyid 'Ali Muhammad Shirazi the >>>Bab (1819-1850). Mr. Terry should go learn Arabic and Persian and read widely in the contemporary mid-nineteenth century primary sources and then come back and nitpick with me about these matters. He is just wrong in almost every particular here. >>>However, the only source he cites in support of his >>>allegations is fragmentary and anonymous hearsay, and this does make for a >>>credible argument. The Baha'i administration's archival documentation is not available to researchers for the period after 1960. Historians of the later period therefore must rely on interviews with principals and oral history. I have collected such oral eye-witness accounts for many years. I believe that they are valuable and reliable. >>>Neither Dr. Robert Stockman nor Mr. Richard Hollinger, perhaps >>>the two best informed historians of the American Baha'i community, has >>>published a detailed analysis of these phenomena. Well, I hope they will write something about all this. I don't think they will find anything different than I did, which is that a process of mass conversion was started in the field in South Carolina, and was stopped by the NSA. >>>On the other hand, Baha'u'llah >>>counselled adherents to nurture their families, to serve their secular and >>>spiritual communities, to be of service to humanity as a whole. How are >>>these admonitions consistent with the isolation alleged by Dr. Cole? The isolation spoken of had to do with thickness of ties to society. Most Americans belong to multiple organizations in civil society. They are members of a political party and of activist organizations such as Amnesty International or Greepeace; of a union; and so forth. Many such memberships are denied Baha'is, which leaves them with 'thin' social ties to US society and much more dependent on their Baha'i community and identity. As for service to humanity, I am unaware to discern much US Baha'i activity that could be so characterized. Many Baha'i communities are essentially fundraising-and-proselytizing organizations. >>>Baha'u'llah insisted that Baha'is not identify themselves with political >>>rivalries, a Could you please cite for me where Baha'u'llah says this? He doesn't. The ban on belonging to political parties doesn't get unambiguously established until Shoghi Effendi. >>>that they not attempt to alter the political status quo; Which is why Baha'u'llah agitated for a move from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy in the 19th century Middle East? What a crock. >>>Dr. Cole alleges that U.S. Baha'is are "anti-liberal"--because they do not >>>reflect what he considers to be a contemporary "liberal" stance. No, if you would bother to read the books I cite you would see that I am using the word 'liberal' to refer to a general political philosophy that favors parliamentary democracy and open debate in society. It is not a reference to the contemporary pop meaning of liberal. Conservative Baha'is have in common with early 20th century fascists a contempt for parliamentary elections, debate and deliberation, a contempt for the free press, and a generally authoritarian conception of the proper functioning of political authority. This is precisely the opposite of the attitude of Baha'u'llah toward these phenomena. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:45 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole : [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 3 -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dean Betts Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 5:37 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 3 >>> He alleges that many American adherents >>>believe in "an apocalyptic event or set of events that will radically change >>>American society and lay the foundation for the mass adoption" of the Baha'i >>>Faith. Dr. Cole offers no objective and credible data to demonstrate how >>>widespread these views are among American believers. Since Baha'i authorities do not allow the taking of polls among Baha'is, it is impossible to gather such quantitative data. However, belief in the Calamity is quite widespread in my opinion, and I have lived in a number of Baha'i communities and met people from all over the country. It is also reported in such academic writing as Richard Hollinger's edited book on Baha'i Community histories. >>> However, he >>>has not found that American Baha'is focus upon the disparagement of American >>>institutions and values, but rather that most are oriented towards the >>>affirmation and realization of Baha'i institutions and values. You've never heard Baha'is condemn the Old World Order???!! We had a former ABM condemn the Bill of Rights in the summer of 1996 on the grounds that it was Old World Order. >>>Dr. Cole has alleged that many American Baha'is do not believe that the >>>First Amendment freedoms--"Congress shall make no law respecting an >>>establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or >>>abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; of the right of the people >>>peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of >>>grievances"--are approved of in the Baha'i Writings, he does not provide any >>>reliable evidence in support of these allegations. Baha'u'llah and His >>>authoritative interpreters have affirmed all of the above human rights, the >>>Universal House of Justice has publically supported the Universal >>>Declaration of Human Rights, and Baha'i law guarrantees these freedoms >>>within the Baha'i community as well. Contemporary Baha'i authorities condemn the separation of religion and state and work toward a Baha'i theocracy; they severely circumscribe freedom of speech and inquiry; they disallow petitions to the Baha'i authorities. >>>Baha'is believe in equal rights for women; This is untrue. Baha'i women do not have equal rights with men and cannot serve on the highest Baha'i administrative body. >>>Paralleling its commitment to the >>>protection of individual human rights, the Baha'i Faith also champions >>>social rights--the rights of humanity as a whole, which include the right to >>>live in peace, to live in a sustainable balance with nature, and to live in >>>a stable and equitable political and economic system. This is why the Baha'i leadership is ruining the ecology of Mt. Carmel and Haifa Bay? >>> Secondly, it is clear, >>>based upon Dr. Cole's papers and recent book as well as this article, that >>>he opposes theocracy and espouses the separation of religion and state, and >>>believes that the espousal of such values by certain Baha'is respresents a >>>distortion of the teachings of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. This is true. And . . ? Thirdly, by >>>not discussing this subject in a larger context, he invites the reader to >>>fill in the gaps for himself; in view of the recent publicity given to >>>so-called "far right" evangelical Christian and Muslim militants, the reader >>>may be inclined to view those Baha'is who seem to espouse theocratic views >>>as belonging to the same extremist fringe. Those rightwing Baha'is who espouse Baha'i theocracy seem to me to be very similar to the right wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (most of whom are also politically quietist but want a Christian theocracy in the US)> >>> >>>Dr. Cole compares Baha'is to the followers of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, a >>>comparison which is odious to Baha'is and Iranian Muslims alike. He would >>>have his readers believe that the Baha'i administration, and the Universal >>>House of Justice in particular are dictatorial in nature, and hence the >>>comparison with the late Ayatollah. All I know is that the US government allows professors to publish on any subject without prepublication censorship and without threatening to have them shunned. The Universal House of Justice, on the contrary, insists on censorship and uses threats of shunning to coerce consciences and speech. >>> Furthermore, one of the most cherished Baha'i principles is the >>>"independent investigation of truth" which resembles "American >>>individualism" in some ways: Baha'is insist upon the primacy of the >>>individual's experience rather than upon the over-riding value of the >>>collective consciousness. Except that when an individual Baha'i's independent investigation of the truth leads him to conclusions, such as those of Michael McKenny, he is summarily dropped from the rolls or threatened with being shunned. Many rightwing Baha'is maintain that the independent investigation of reality must cease when one becomes a Baha'i. >>>Baha'u'llah makes a distinction between criticism expressed privately to an >>>individual or institution with which one has a disagreement, and public >>>expression of criticism, that is, expression of criticism to any individuals >>>or institutions which are not directly concerned. Baha'u'llah never said any such thing!! Indeed, Baha'is are >>>permitted and even encouraged to question and formally appeal institutional >>>decisions with which they disagree--not just decisions arrived at the local >>>level by LSAs or at the regional level by RBCs, but also decisions made at >>>the national level by NSAs. In private conversation or a letter to the institution, which may then ignore them. This has the effect of forestalling the formation of a public opinion on an issue and atomizing individuals, making it easy to control or ignore them. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:46 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 4 -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dean Betts Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:03 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 4 [Cole reply to Peter Terry, pt. 4]. >>>Public criticism is forbidden by Baha'u'llah for various reasons. Public criticism is not forbidden by Baha'u'llah, and both he and `Abdu'l-Baha engaged in it. >>>Baha'u'llah has written that backbiting (slander) and gossip are harmful to >>>the spiritual health of those who speak them, those who hear them, and those >>>to which they refer. There is a difference between backbiting/slander and critiquing the status quo in society. The latter is the obligation of all thinking persons. >>>Baha'u'llah has >>>indicated, as a matter of spiritual principle, that no soul is to be >>>humiliated. Which is why Baha'is have their administrative rights taken away essentially on political grounds by the NSA (Sobhani, Akhtarekhavari, Langness), which then humiliates them by announcing the fact in the American Baha'i? >>>He has stated that the confession of sins to another save God >>>is forbidden, inasmuch as this is a humiliating act, and God does not wish >>>any soul to be humiliated. Then why did the NSA demand that David Langness confess his sins to it? >>> 'Abdu'l-Baha counselled Baha'is >>>to say nothing which would sadden another, to avoid hurting other people's >>>feelings at all costs. Which is why rightwing Baha'is routinely accuse other Baha'is of being covenant breakers. >>>Public criticism is one of the ingredients of Covenant-breaking, for it >>>challenges the authority of the Prophet, and the obligation of the adherent >>>to follow His ordinances. This is a vast extension of the meaning of covenant breaking that would not have been recognizable to Baha'is in previous periods of history, and is evidence of a ratcheting of Baha'i culture to the cult-like Far Right. >>>Baha'u'llah declared Mirza Yahya and his >>>followers Covenant-breakers ("naqazin"). This was not because they did not >>>recognize Him as the prophetic fulfillment promised in the Writings of the >>>Bab and denominated "Him Whom God shall manifest"--for there were other >>>Babis who did not become Baha'is but who were not declared >>>Covenant-breakers. Rather, the Azalis were declared Covenant-breakers >>>because of their implacable opposition to, criticism of and machinations >>>against Baha'u'llah. And yet Azalis were not shunned. >>>Dr. Cole alleges that the Baha'i administrative system "denies the need for >>>checks and balances." However, it should be noted that Baha'u'llah and >>>'Abdu'l-Baha indicated that the Universal House of Justice was assured at >>>all times of infallible divine guidance, and that it would not abrogate a >>>single provision of the Baha'i Scriptures. So whatever the leaders do is ipso facto correct and there is no external standard of judgment by which their actions could ever be criticized. This sort of thinking is typical of cult members. >>>Finally, Dr. Cole alleges that the current membership of the NSA has guarded >>>its incumbency in a variety of ways, and that without nominations and >>>campaigning it is a challenge for electors to recognize qualified >>>individuals other than the incumbents. While it is certain that recognizing >>>such prospective members for the NSA has been and continues to be difficult >>>for the American Baha'i electorate, Dr. Cole's allegations are based upon >>>hearsay, and seem to be bent upon undermining the credibility of the NSA >>>rather than discerning the truth. The American Baha'i community at some point developed a system whereby the NSA nominates candidates to the delegates by various subtle or not so subtle signals, and Baha'i culture is so oriented toward unquestioning obedience that the delegates appear to be quite happy to have the NSA essentially choose those who will fill vacancies on that body. Not only have a number of old-time Baha'is talked about these mechanisms privately, including the practice whereby presence or non-presence on the stage before elections at the National Convention is decisive, but the electoral *results* point unambiguously to the conclusion that the elections are manipulated. The Nelsons are husband and wife. Dorothy Nelson, elected in 1970, is said to have arranged in behind the scenes ways for Jim to join her on that body in 1971. Bill Davis is Dorothy Nelson's former employee. Juana Conrad is Jim Nelson's former employee. Bob Henderson succeeded his mother, Wilma Ellis, on the NSA, and his mother married NSA member Firuz Kazemzadeh. African-American Alberta Deas was succeeded by African-American Bill Roberts. The Locke family has been filling the 'Native American' seat. That these results could possibly be the result of free and fair *national* elections is absolutely impossible. The US NSA is riven with cronyism and nepotism, and stands as incontrovertible proof of the corruption of the Baha'i electoral system in the US. >>> For example, he alleges that >>>"the most widespread approach in the American Baha'i community to scriptural >>>exegesis is literalism, as in fundamentalist Protestantism." Inasmuch as >>>Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha both affirmed that much of scripture is >>>allegorical, symbolic, and spiritual in nature, not capable of being >>>properly understood through a literalistic approach, this characterization >>>of the American Baha'i community seems puzzling indeed. In fact, American >>>Baha'is study Baha'i scripture (and other scriptures) from a very broad >>>range of perspectives, some academic, some intuitive, some scientific, some >>>pragmatic, others mystical. Yes, but the most *wide-spread* approach in the US community is scriptural literalism. All you have to do to test this assertion is go on Soc.Religion.Bahai and say you are a Baha'i who believes in Darwinian evolution. You will receive large numbers of replies stating that evolution is wrong because a literal reading of Baha'i scripture says so. Among the 'verbal covenant-breaking' charges launched at Professor John Walbridge by Counselor Stephen Birkland and his masters was that Walbridge denied that Socrates met with the prophets of the children of Israel, contrary to what `Abdu'l-Baha said in Secret of Divine Civilization. Not only is literalism the most widespread approach, it is increasingly *imposed* on pain of shunning. >>>On the other hand, the only binding, that is, >>>authoritative interpretations of scripture--Baha'i or otherwise--are, >>>according to 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, those found in their own >>>writings and in the works of Baha'u'llah. In fact, both the counselors and the Universal House of Justice are now de facto claiming the prerogative of engaging in authoritative interpretation of scripture. They simply put some interpretations that they don't like into the category of 'verbal covenant-breaking,' thus in effect anathematizing those views and ensuring that interpretations they favor are the only ones that can be heard. When covenant breaking was only a matter of schism or rebellion, this was not the case. But when you invent a thought crime such as 'making statements contrary to the covenant' then you are asserting the prerogative of authoritative interpretation, which is what the UHJ has done, quite in contradiction to basic Baha'i texts and principles. >>>According to Dr. Cole, the Baha'i community is rife with informers, with >>>spies, with thought police, and he implicitly compares this to allegedly >>>Islamic norms by noting that this "system of using rank-and-file informers >>>has a venerable history in the Middle East." The present writer is not well >>>enough informed about Middle Eastern history to know whether or not Dr. Cole >>>has slandered one or two religions here. Haven't slandered anyone. Sultan Abdulhamid II, who had `Abdu'l-Baha investigated, used to encourage neighbors to report on neighbors in his empire, and enjoyed reading the reports before he went to bed each night. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlevi (r. 1941-1979) employed an army of secret police informers, who infiltrated classrooms and cultural clubs and reported on the discussions there. Imam Ruhollah Khomeini boasted that whereas the Shah only had a limited number of SAVAK domestic spies, in his regime all Iranians stood ready to report on one another to the state; even children were told to report on their parents; Khomeini said he had 36 million spies (i.e. the whole population of Iran then). A similar commitment to 'reporting' fellow Baha'is exists among very large numbers of American Baha'is. >>> It is required by law that >>>witnesses report what they suspect to be illegal acts to the police. So if I criticize President Clinton to a fellow American, it would only be right for that person to call up the FBI and tell them I am a dangerous radical and should be watched? >>> individual Baha'is may report behavior which appears to >>>break the Baha'i Covenant to one of the branches of Baha'i administration, >>>and this may result in representatives of one of those institutions >>>contacting the individual in question, and seeking to ascertain the facts in >>>the case, or to advise the individual of the possible consequences of his >>>actions. In other words, my observation in this regard was perfectly correct. >>> certainly, Dr. Cole has >>>been the subject of many reports to Baha'i institutions, because of his >>>unusual interpretations of Baha'i history and doctrine, and his outspoken >>>public criticism of various Baha'i institutions and regulations. However, >>>the present writer's personal experience and conversations with many other >>>adherents suggest that most Baha'is with whom he is acquainted have never >>>felt that they were "under constant surveillance" by fellow believers. Obviously, one is not 'reported' if there is nothing to report. However, if Cole were reported on because of idiosyncratic views, then wouldn't we expect everyone with idiosyncratic views to be reported? And what if rightwing Baha'is define everyone else in the community as 'idiosyncratic'? My files are bulging with instances of Baha'is who were 'reported,' by the way; it is very common and no writer I know of in the community has avoided it. (By the way, I was not when I was a Baha'i an outspoken critic.) >>>CENSORSHIP >>> >>>The policy of prepublication review was discussed in the Introduction, but >>>here Dr. Cole makes some unsupported allegations which call for refutation. >>>He indicates that "Baha'i authors have been prevented from publishing on the >>>controversies of contemporary Baha'i history" and implies that "the history >>>of the community since about 1950 has not been written about in any detail" >>>because of the mandatory prepublication review of all papers, articles and >>>books by Baha'i writers. The actual fact is that very few historians have >>>taken up the study of American Baha'i history, and that the two historians >>>who have done so in recent years, Dr. Robert Stockman and Mr. Richard >>>Hollinger, having begun with study of the early years of the community while >>>in graduate school, have not yet found the requisite time to study the >>>primary sources for the second half of the twentieth century. It is to be >>>hoped that more historians will participate in studying this period in >>>American Baha'i history. There are lots of potential historians of the American community. You do not mention R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, e.g. In fact, privately a number of them have told me that Baha'i censorship has made it impossible for them to publish their work. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:47 PM Subject: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5 -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dean Betts Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:03 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5 [Cole reply to Peter Terry, pt. 5] >>>As was noted earlier, Baha'u'llah and his successors do not permit Baha'is >>>to engage in public criticism of one another, of their government, of the >>>Baha'i institutions, of authoritative statements of Baha'i doctrine. This is both false and ahistorical. >>>Cole cites many examples of electronic conversations posted to public >>>forums, and indicates that adherents were subjected to "postpublication >>>censorship" by various "Baha'i officials." What he does not explicitly >>>state, but what is obvious to the reader is that all of the conversations >>>which elicited comment from the "institution of the learned" (that is, >>>Counsellors, Auxiliary Board Members or their Assistants) were public, and >>>all were critical of other adherents, of Baha'i institutions, and/or of >>>authoritative statements of Baha'i doctrine. This is not true, either. I have gathered up a fair number of instances where email messages sent to a small number of people on a private list were forwarded to the authorities, and as a result of which sanctions were threatened against the author. In several of these cases the author was not critical of the Baha'i institutions, but was simply saying things they did not want to have said. The right of women to be eligible to serve on the universal house of justice is one such hot-button issue that produces heresy investigations. Non-literal scriptural interpretation (e.g. not accepting the Virgin Birth of Christ), and a generally 'liberal' theological outlook appear to be others. >>> Furthermore, Dr. Cole >>>indicates that "Dialogue" magazine and the "Talisman" list both closed down >>>as a result of active opposition from Baha'i institutions. While neither of >>>these two organs of communication were compelled to cease and desist by any >>>level of Baha'i administration, it is incontestible that both were viewed >>>with considerable concern by the NSA and the Universal House of Justice. You can't run a magazine like Dialogue in the US Baha'i community when the NSA is hostile to you. The NSA's launching of false allegations against the editors put a chill on the enterprise that essentially closed it, and was intended to. (Otherwise, the NSA could have pleaded with Scholl not to close it down). Falsely ccusing the Talisman list-owner and his wife of verbal covenant-breaking was likewise intended to cause him to close the list. You can argue legalistically that these forms of discourse weren't formally ordered closed by the Baha'i authorities. But that would just be apologetics. >>>The reason for this concern was that "Dialogue" and "Talisman" crossed the >>>line from private--through correct channels and privileged--criticism to >>>public criticism, thereby compromising essential Baha'i principles. This is false. Dialogue articles were submitted for prepublication censorship to the NSA, and so could not possibly cross the line to public criticism, since their publication could simply be forbidden. As for Talisman, the Universal House of Justice lied to the members of that list. In May, 1995, that body authorized the continued functioning of the list as legitimate, and characterized such email messages as private correspondence not requiring review. A year later the UHJ comes after posters on the list with false and outrageous accusations that they are verbal covenant breakers. So which is it? >>> In order to resign from membership in the >>>Baha'i community an individual must publically renounce his recognition of >>>the prophetic station of Baha'u'llah, the validity of his Covenant and the >>>obligatory character of the Baha'i laws and teachings. Anyone who takes >>>such a drastic course of action must assume full responsibility for his >>>behavior. If Dr. Cole is sincere in his renunciation of Baha'i membership, >>>then the present writer will look forward to his transition to a new >>>identity, one not associated with the Baha'i Faith. However, his comments >>>in this article, and his recent book on the Baha'i Faith seem to indicate >>>that Dr. Cole wishes to remain associated with Baha'u'llah, as a protestant >>>and dissident, as a reinterpreter of Baha'i text, doctrine and history. In other words, unless I write about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i faith in the way that Peter Terry and his ideological soul-mates like, or unless (better yet), I fall silent, then they will organize a conspiracy to have me and my works shunned. How would it look if I threatened Peter Terry in this way? 'Unless he stops saying these awful things,' I could say, 'I will throw him off all my lists and contact all my friends and tell them to shun him; I'll see that no one will publish him, and no one will carry his works if they are published.' Of course, I would never try to bully an interlocutor that way. I respect reasoned argument. But rightwing Baha'is do not. They want to hear only the sound of their own voices, and if any other voice is heard, they attempt to strangle it. >>> All of these dissidents were ultimately unsuccessful at >>>attracting followers, either away from the Covenant of Baha'u'llah or from >>>the populace at large. This is the most godawful slander anyone could imagine. Please name even *one* 'follower' of Cole. I am an Emersonian. I hold for self-reliance. If anyone tries to follow me, I will give them a good kick in the chops. They should get their own goddamn schtick. >>>CONCLUSION >>> >>>In summation, Dr. Cole has made various allegations which, taken together, >>>characterize the American Baha'i community as a cult, and the American >>>Baha'i governing institutions as authoritarian, disingenuous, and >>>un-American. I haven't characterized the American Baha'i community of any such thing. I characterized Right Wing Baha'is and some elements of the Baha'i governance structure in this way. >>>He infers that the members of these institutions are routinely >>>depriving American adherents of their basic human rights under the U.S. >>>Constitution. Rightwing Baha'i practices of shunning, threats of shunning, prepublication censorship, removal of administrative rights for the wrong email message, public humiliation in the American Baha'i, prohibitions on public critiques of the status quo, and so forth, do deprive adherents of basic human rights as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He states that the "N.S.A. maintains the "orthodox" ideology >>>in power and prevents the election to that institution of dissenters through >>>identifying them and ensuring that they do not become visible in the >>>community." I can give large numbers of examples to back this statement up. >>>When one considers that there is a very great diversity of >>>perspectives which individual Baha'is bring to the American Baha'i >>>community; The diversity of perspectives is only allowed among the 'non-prominent,' who are suffered so their pockets can be picked to pay for marble palaces. >>>when one weighs the notoriety of Dr. Cole and a number of other >>>highly visible dissidents; I do not understand this argument. What am I notorious for, and why should that affect whether my arguments and evidence are sound? This is just slander and rhetorical fluff. >>>when one considers that American Baha'is tend to >>>vote for incumbents, and do not have a record of electing "dissenters" to >>>any position of leadership because the NSA chases out of the faith anyone who seems to be becoming prominent of whom they don't approve, thus rather limiting the delegates' choices. >>> Inasmuch as the "dissenters" are among the most visible of >>>"believers" in this country, it is nonsensical to suggest that the NSA could >>>ensure that "they do not become visible in the community." Their administrative rights are removed; Henderson has Janet Rubenstein call up their LSA's and announce that their deepening talks are cancelled; sleazeball counselors are sent to their house to interrogate them and threaten them with shunning; they are blackballed at major Baha'i summer schools. There are lots of ways to prevent visibility so as to ensure unelectability. >>> Dr. Cole sums up his case, by >>>alleging that these "control mechanisms" discourage "spiritual >>>entrepreneurship and keeps the religion [the Baha'i Faith] from growing in >>>the West." He seems to be convinced that the proliferation of many personal >>>interpretations of Baha'u'llah's teachings would lead to an expansion in >>>membership. First you say that individual interpretation is fine. Then you see 'proliferation of many personal interpretations' as an evil. This kind of double-think is very common on the Baha'i Right. If this were the case then surely such an expansion would have >>>occured during the past few years, inasmuch as the expression of personal >>>interpretations has exploded into prominence since the establishment of the >>>Internet. Baha'i free expression on the internet has been severely curtailed by the expedient of bullying the posters. Go back and see the effervescence on Soc.Religion.Bahai in 1995, and compare it to the pablum posted there nowadays. The great Inquisition of 1996 has been very successful. >>>the contrary, it seems most likely that this often unbridled >>>evocation of distorted and misguided opinions has led rather to the >>>stagnation or even the shrinkage of the American Baha'i community. The last time the Baha'i faith expanded numerically in any significant way in the US through conversions was the 1970s. Since then numbers have been stagnant, despite the phoney statistics put out from Wilmette in the desperate hope of giving some other impression. Since the internet only burst on the Baha'i scene as a vehicle for the expression of individual opinion in 1994, it can hardly be blamed for the long-term stagnation that has characterized Mr. Henderson's term in office. >>>"Spiritual entrepreneurship" within the context of established Baha'i values >>>and institutions is both supported and encouraged, but it would be tatamount >>>to spiritual suicide for Baha'is to operate independently of the Baha'i >>>Covenant. Terry then quotes Baha'u'llah on liberty in an inaccurate way. I have explained elsewhere that the word liberty was translated by the Arabic al-hurriyyah, which bore connotations both of libertinism and moral license as well as political liberty. In this passage Baha'u'llah is condemning the former meaning, not the latter. He says explicitly that he approves of liberty in certain conditions, by which he means democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and his other principles. Again, this is a typical Rightwing Baha'i distortion of Baha'u'llah's words. >>> Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for >>> their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the cer- >>> We approve of liberty in certain circum- >>> stances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, >>> are the All-Knowing. >>>This is not the sort of freedom that we discuss in mainstream American >>>society, nor in academia for that matter. Of course it is. Among Baha'u'llah's commandments is that an elected parliament be established and the rights of the people be preserved and due process be ensured. This attempt to use Baha'u'llah to justify arbitrary dictatorship is not only historically flawed, it is disgusting. cheers Juan Cole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 7:50 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: fw NEW BOOK ON BAHAÍ FAITH -----Original Message----- From: PP. Agustinos OSA - Columela, 12 To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 2:14 PM Subject: NEW BOOK ON BAHAÍ FAITH A NEW BOOK IS BORN ! : Title: LA FE BAHAÍ. żUna nueva religión mundial? Edited by Ediciones RELIGIÓN y CULTURA Columela, 12 28001 MADRID – SPAIN You may find / order it at www.jeaf.com/samasabe/noticias.htm Easy to understand, the book offers complete information about Bahaí Faith. It will become a very useful instrument both for Bahaí belivers and Christian belivers. The book has a scientific structure which will help to get a global idea of Bahaí Faith. It is easy to read as well as its spanish stylus is very clear, and each sentence will guide and will introduce you in the whole context. For further information, don´t hesitate and PLEASE click here: www.jeaf.com/samasabe/noticias.htm My personal E-mail: ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 6:20 AM Subject: Abdu'l-Baha on conscience & liberty "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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 6:33 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <72885f$dr8@chronicle.concentric.net>... >In article <36466352.7C80A50B@usq.edu.au>, house@usq.edu.au wrote: > >>I don't want anyone to think I am underestimating the challenge of >>actually carrying through and making it actually work. We will need to >>continue co-operating on the newsgroup once we start discussing the >>things we disagree about. But I can imagine no greater adventure than >>trying to understand truth better by creative conversations with others >>who are NOT like myself. > >I suggest that you and other Bahais who will be setting the tone for >the newsgroup study (unmoderated) soc.religion.quaker for advice on >how to deal with abusers. Posting a question asking for advice about >dealing with abuse would be very much welcome. Please don't crosspost >to any other newsgroups, as most of the users really dislike the >practice and many of them killfile anything crossposted to more than >one newsgroup. Guy, I have appreciated your advice in the past and this now too. I've posted a message of yours on the subject that I've saved a few times to alt.religion.bahai. I'm not sure to what extent others have tried to implement it but at least a few people said they were trying to deal effectively with a few crossposters and other problems. It occurs to me others might find your message useful or you might want to update from more recent experience on soc.religion.quaker or whatever. I'll include it at the end here. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ------- Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Subject: how to deal with MAITREYA posts Date: 1 Dec 1997 13:34:17 GMT Organization: Electronics Engineer Lines: 89 Message-ID: <65uecp$7ak$3@news01.deltanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ana0003.deltanet.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (16bit) X-No-Archive: yes Xref: szdc alt.religion.bahai:3716 Lesson #1 in maintaining an unmoderated newsgroup: crossposted threads. Right now. you have a problem with crossposted threads about MAITREYA. One such post was crossposted to: Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.bible.prophecy, talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.bahai What to do? STEP 1: Post 3 seperate posts to the three groups other than yours with a polite request to trim the newsgroups line. Here is tha one that I use in srq: **** start of quote ***** Please note that this was crossposted to: talk.religion.buddhism alt.bible.prophecy talk.religion.newage alt.religion.bahai Please trim your alt.religion.bahai from your 'Newsgroups:' line when you reply to this thread. **** end of quote ***** This will catch the few clueful folks who are crossposting. STEP 2: Email a polite request to everyone who crossposts to your newsgroup. **** start of quote ***** Hi! Would it be possible to remove alt.religion.bahai from the list of newsgroups that this is crossposted to? By having our group in your crossposting list, you cause us to also get every reply that your post generates. I don't want you to change what you are saying; I just want to keep it out of a newsgroup that is about Bahais. (I do realize that your newsreader probably just copied the list of groups from the message that you replied to. It's a pain to always check where your messages are going to be posted to, but it helps keep down the chaos if you do...) With most newsreader software, you trim newsgroups by moving your cursor up to the "Newsgroups:" line and using your delete key to remove unwanted groups. I personally like to remove any groups that I don't read. If I am mistaken and you really wanted to send your message to the Bahai newsgroup, please forgive me and ignore this; I am only trying to reach those who do not realize that they are sending copies of their messages to alt.religion.bahai. Thanks in advance for anything that you can do. YOUR NAME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS **** end of quote ***** Work it out among yourselfs so that only one of you sends the email, and keep a list so that you don't hit the same person twice. Be prepared for a lot of questions and a few flames. Answer the questions and ignore the flames. STEP 3: If, after a week of the above tactics, the thread continues, then do this: Reply to a post in the thread. Make your reply interesting and on the topic. You want this to be the sort of thing folks will reply to. remove alt.religion.bahai from the newsgroups line. This will cause the discussion to continue outside of your newsgroup. The key in all of this is unfailing superpoliteness, even in the face of insults and flames. One bahai flamer can ruin this plan, so you might have to correct each other when one of you becomes impolite... Try these methods, they are proven to work. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: fw Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL forwarded from AOL Message Boards -- Subject: Re: folders Date: 11/17/1998 2:58 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981117145812.10010.00001884@ng36.aol.com> >A suggestion for a folder: > >Bahai Censorship I second that. Absolutely. Let's be honest about it. Too much damage has already been done in the name and to the name of Baha'u'llah by right-wing administrative bullies, linear-thinking apologists, and doctrinaire-fundamentalists. You can't just blame it all on the critics. Wherever there is conflict, there are real problems that need resolution--not just in the interests of some, but for all. Why isn't the UHJ doing a better job addressing these issues honestly, without pretense, denial and obfuscation? Call in the outside conflict-resolution experts at least. Why let problems drift and fester until far more irreparable damage is done? To me this suggests that the Bahai are not prepared should they be confronted by larger, better organized and funded forces outside the Faith (should that day come at all). It's time to officially level the playing field to include and welcome all voices, including Dr. Cole's. In fact, without recognizing the informed observations of Dr. Cole and others, I don't see how the Bahai faith can honestly succeed in the world. Such critical feedback is essential. This is a wake up call, folks. How many Bahais are really listening? Can they afford not to? Where do Bahais begin from here to right the wrongs of their past? Will they admit to such wrongs? At the very least, a "censorship" folder would help legitimize the kinds of experiences that have traditionally been swept under the Persian carpet. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 4:06 PM Subject: Re: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) Please note I posted Juan Cole's forwarded message only to alt.religion.bahai and have reset followups to alt.religion.bahai. For those interested, my response to Mr. Ahmadi may be found on alt.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <3652CEE7.D0579EA6@usa.net>... >I am loathe to respond to someone who is not directly >posting his articles here but it seems that Professor >Cole does mind what Frederick is doing so here we >go. > >I have no illusions of changing your (Juan's) mind >on anything but remaining silent will leave the wrong >impression on disinterested parties whose vote on >t.r.b. Frederick is trying to sway. > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juan Cole >> To: Dean Betts >> Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; >> talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:03 AM >> Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5 >> >> [Cole reply to Peter Terry, pt. 5] >> > >[snip] > >> >> >> As for Talisman, the Universal House of Justice lied to the members of that >> list. In May, 1995, that body authorized the continued functioning of the >> list as legitimate, and characterized such email messages as private >> correspondence not requiring review. A year later the UHJ comes after >> posters on the list with false and outrageous accusations that they are >> verbal covenant breakers. So which is it? >> > >Your characterizations of the Universal House of Justice as liars is not >supported by your statement of facts. The actions of the UHJ were >neither contrary to nor competing with their consent for the continuation >of Talisman. > >If memory serves, on one occasion when a member of Talisman was >expelled from the list because he was thought to be obnoxious in >the judgment of some, you said that Talisman was like a graduate >seminar in which the professor can throw somebody out if he is >misbehaving. What was the House Justice supposed to? > >While Talisman may have started as a "private" research project >of Dr. John Waldbridge, it became something else. It became >the "Dialogue" that never was - an "uncensored" free-for-all >whose reach was potentially far greater than any Baha'i >publication. It would be naive to think that those who were >involved with Talisman or the UHJ were unappreciative of >thess facts. > >I ask the question that I put forward to Frederick to which >he has not responded: > >Would a Baha'i, or a group of Baha'is, be justified in >suggesting, by innuendo, that the actions of the Institutions >of the Faith are similar to killing babies? > >-saman > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) Followups reset to arb Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <3652CEE7.D0579EA6@usa.net>... >I am loathe to respond to someone who is not directly >posting his articles here but it seems that Professor >Cole does mind what Frederick is doing so here we >go. Perhaps you intended "does not." I have asked Dr. Cole in the past for permission to forward any of his messages that I thought other people might find interesting. He stated more than once that I or anyone else was free to forward his words to any forum. > >I have no illusions of changing your (Juan's) mind >on anything but remaining silent will leave the wrong >impression on disinterested parties whose vote on >t.r.b. Frederick is trying to sway. You are making an assumption above. My forwarding Dr. Cole's messages are unrelated to the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, as far as I'm concerned. I believe an intelligent voice that respects the Teachings of Abdu'l-Baha regarding freedom of speech and conscience should always be heard.... Though relating to similar issues, the poll is a separate matter.... Regarding the questions below, should he choose to, I allow Dr. Cole to speak for himself.... > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juan Cole >> To: Dean Betts >> Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; >> talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:03 AM >> Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5 >> >> [Cole reply to Peter Terry, pt. 5] >> > >[snip] > >> >>Juan Cole wrote: >> As for Talisman, the Universal House of Justice lied to the members of that >> list. In May, 1995, that body authorized the continued functioning of the >> list as legitimate, and characterized such email messages as private >> correspondence not requiring review. A year later the UHJ comes after >> posters on the list with false and outrageous accusations that they are >> verbal covenant breakers. So which is it? >> > Saman Ahmadi wrote >Your characterizations of the Universal House of Justice as liars is not >supported by your statement of facts. The actions of the UHJ were >neither contrary to nor competing with their consent for the continuation >of Talisman. > >If memory serves, on one occasion when a member of Talisman was >expelled from the list because he was thought to be obnoxious in >the judgment of some, you said that Talisman was like a graduate >seminar in which the professor can throw somebody out if he is >misbehaving. What was the House Justice supposed to? > >While Talisman may have started as a "private" research project >of Dr. John Waldbridge, it became something else. It became >the "Dialogue" that never was - an "uncensored" free-for-all >whose reach was potentially far greater than any Baha'i >publication. It would be naive to think that those who were >involved with Talisman or the UHJ were unappreciative of >thess facts. > >I ask the question that I put forward to Frederick to which >he has not responded: > >Would a Baha'i, or a group of Baha'is, be justified in >suggesting, by innuendo, that the actions of the Institutions >of the Faith are similar to killing babies? > >-saman I will be happy to answer Mr. Ahmadi on talk.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 6:22 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) Reset back to alt.religion.bahai This thread is really off topic for news.groups. Please keep this discussion on alt.religion.bahai. See my comments below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <36536AC6.9813C50C@usa.net>... > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Followups reset to arb >> > >Follow-ups reset to news.groups > >[snip] > >> > >> >I have no illusions of changing your (Juan's) mind >> >on anything but remaining silent will leave the wrong >> >impression on disinterested parties whose vote on >> >t.r.b. Frederick is trying to sway. >> >> You are making an assumption above. My forwarding >> Dr. Cole's messages are unrelated to the interest poll >> for talk.religion.bahai, as far as I'm concerned. I believe >> an intelligent voice that respects the Teachings of >> Abdu'l-Baha regarding freedom of speech and >> conscience should always be heard.... Though relating >> to similar issues, the poll is a separate matter.... >> > >The only reason that I can see for you to continually >forward only selective messages from a thread is >an attempt to sway the readers - you are manipulating >the context of a discussion and I can not believe >that this is consistent with source critical modern >Western scholarship for which Dr. Cole is champion. Dr. Cole himself posted all of the forwarded messages to bahai-faith@egroups.com which is the mailing list created back in March for those who cannot post directly to alt.religion.bahai. I have regularly since then forwarded messages from it. You might take up your other allegation with Dr. Cole. I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, but I do not believe I'm manipulating anything, merely providing Dr. Cole and others the opportunity to participate, however indirectly, on alt.religion.bahai. Fortunately, talk.religion.bahai will remedy this situation and people will be able to post their own messages on the Big 8 hierarchy. > >-saman > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 6:27 AM To: Kathy Pascoe Subject: Fw: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) Kathy, Would you consider responding to this person? I've already tried once to reset the followups to alt.religion.bahai, and I'm afraid he's looking for trouble. The issues he's bringing up are off topic. I've tried to answer him in neutral terms on alt.religion.bahai. Your telling him he's off topic might work. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Saman Ahmadi Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Followups reset to arb >> > >Follow-ups reset to news.groups > >[snip] > >> > >> >I have no illusions of changing your (Juan's) mind >> >on anything but remaining silent will leave the wrong >> >impression on disinterested parties whose vote on >> >t.r.b. Frederick is trying to sway. >> >> You are making an assumption above. My forwarding >> Dr. Cole's messages are unrelated to the interest poll >> for talk.religion.bahai, as far as I'm concerned. I believe >> an intelligent voice that respects the Teachings of >> Abdu'l-Baha regarding freedom of speech and >> conscience should always be heard.... Though relating >> to similar issues, the poll is a separate matter.... >> > >The only reason that I can see for you to continually >forward only selective messages from a thread is >an attempt to sway the readers - you are manipulating >the context of a discussion and I can not believe >that this is consistent with source critical modern >Western scholarship for which Dr. Cole is champion. > >-saman > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 8:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As a member of AOL, who pays $21.95 a month, I'm concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As a member of the Bahai Faith, I have witnessed censorship practiced in many forums on and off the Internet. I presently am helping to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. My web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm I ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views. The person proposed below by some has repeatedly refused to seriously consider the concerns I and others raise below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ------- Posted to Bahai Forum, Message Boards, For Non-Bahais: I and another person, Ruletherod, have expressed an interest in seeing a folder created for "Bahai Censorship," a real and apparently lasting problem for Bahais and the Bahai administration. Susan Maneck has ignored my message below and others relating to this request or she has brushed them aside, changing the subject, using the Bahai Technique so commonly used.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm I submit she is unfit to serve the best intersts of all paying subscribers to AOL. As a person unable to play fairly and apparently allow a variety of viewpoints, she should not be the replacement for Mark Foster, who, incidentally, if he has any sense of duty and obligation, should immediately resign as Forum Leader since he has abandoned the job for at least several months now and maybe longer. I shall be forwarding this post to AOL and request that others who agree consider contacting AOL as well. Subject: Re: folders Susan Maneck as Forum Leader? Date: 11/16/1998 7:56 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981116075607.00701.00000244@ng74.aol.com> >Dear Sunni, > >We are trying to obtain the proper tools to redesign these folders as I >speak. A number of friends have asked me to take responsibility for this, so >hopefully this situation will not continue much longer. I d anticipate >eliminating any active folders, however, although the number of folders >dealing with homosexuality, Christiian/Baha'i dialogue will probably be >reduced to one each. > >warmest, Susan You say "we." Who has appointed you, Susan? I doubt very much you will handle the job of "Forum Leader" in a fair and impartial manner. The same manipulative censorship and distortion that have manifested themselves on every other "Bahai" newsgroup or mailing list will surely be the result. You can prove your fairness by implementing the following changes on AOL which I have been advocating since mid-August 1998 under Keyword search Bahai: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries finally functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 8:22 AM Subject: Abdu'l-Baha on conscience & liberty "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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 12:08 PM To: talisman Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As a member of AOL, who pays $21.95 a month, I'm concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As a member of the Bahai Faith, I have witnessed censorship practiced in many forums on and off the Internet. I presently am helping to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. My web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm I ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views. The person proposed below by some has repeatedly refused to seriously consider the concerns I and others raise below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ------- Posted to Bahai Forum, Message Boards, For Non-Bahais: I and another person, Ruletherod, have expressed an interest in seeing a folder created for "Bahai Censorship," a real and apparently lasting problem for Bahais and the Bahai administration. Susan Maneck has ignored my message below and others relating to this request or she has brushed them aside, changing the subject, using the Bahai Technique so commonly used.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm I submit she is unfit to serve the best intersts of all paying subscribers to AOL. As a person unable to play fairly and apparently allow a variety of viewpoints, she should not be the replacement for Mark Foster, who, incidentally, if he has any sense of duty and obligation, should immediately resign as Forum Leader since he has abandoned the job for at least several months now and maybe longer. I shall be forwarding this post to AOL and request that others who agree consider contacting AOL as well. Subject: Re: folders Susan Maneck as Forum Leader? Date: 11/16/1998 7:56 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981116075607.00701.00000244@ng74.aol.com> >Dear Sunni, > >We are trying to obtain the proper tools to redesign these folders as I >speak. A number of friends have asked me to take responsibility for this, so >hopefully this situation will not continue much longer. I d anticipate >eliminating any active folders, however, although the number of folders >dealing with homosexuality, Christiian/Baha'i dialogue will probably be >reduced to one each. > >warmest, Susan You say "we." Who has appointed you, Susan? I doubt very much you will handle the job of "Forum Leader" in a fair and impartial manner. The same manipulative censorship and distortion that have manifested themselves on every other "Bahai" newsgroup or mailing list will surely be the result. You can prove your fairness by implementing the following changes on AOL which I have been advocating since mid-August 1998 under Keyword search Bahai: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries finally functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Scholarship and Anti-scholarship ( was Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5) For some reason, my first response to Mr. Ahmadi is not showing up here on news.groups or dejanews.com. Here it is again: ----- Please note I posted Juan Cole's forwarded message only to alt.religion.bahai and have reset followups to alt.religion.bahai. For those interested, my response to Mr. Ahmadi may be found on alt.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <3652CEE7.D0579EA6@usa.net>... >I am loathe to respond to someone who is not directly >posting his articles here but it seems that Professor >Cole does mind what Frederick is doing so here we >go. > >I have no illusions of changing your (Juan's) mind >on anything but remaining silent will leave the wrong >impression on disinterested parties whose vote on >t.r.b. Frederick is trying to sway. > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juan Cole >> To: Dean Betts >> Cc: bahai-apologetics@egroups.com ; >> talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:03 AM >> Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: [bahai-apologetics] Cole part 5 >> >> [Cole reply to Peter Terry, pt. 5] >> > >[snip] > >> >> >> As for Talisman, the Universal House of Justice lied to the members of that >> list. In May, 1995, that body authorized the continued functioning of the >> list as legitimate, and characterized such email messages as private >> correspondence not requiring review. A year later the UHJ comes after >> posters on the list with false and outrageous accusations that they are >> verbal covenant breakers. So which is it? >> > >Your characterizations of the Universal House of Justice as liars is not >supported by your statement of facts. The actions of the UHJ were >neither contrary to nor competing with their consent for the continuation >of Talisman. > >If memory serves, on one occasion when a member of Talisman was >expelled from the list because he was thought to be obnoxious in >the judgment of some, you said that Talisman was like a graduate >seminar in which the professor can throw somebody out if he is >misbehaving. What was the House Justice supposed to? > >While Talisman may have started as a "private" research project >of Dr. John Waldbridge, it became something else. It became >the "Dialogue" that never was - an "uncensored" free-for-all >whose reach was potentially far greater than any Baha'i >publication. It would be naive to think that those who were >involved with Talisman or the UHJ were unappreciative of >thess facts. > >I ask the question that I put forward to Frederick to which >he has not responded: > >Would a Baha'i, or a group of Baha'is, be justified in >suggesting, by innuendo, that the actions of the Institutions >of the Faith are similar to killing babies? > >-saman > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 4:55 PM Subject: fw Ruletherod Re: "Individual Rights and Freedoms" FYI from AOL Bahai Forum Message Boards: Subject: Re: "Individual Rights and Freedoms" Date: 11/19/1998 4:19 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981119161902.09762.00000156@ng40.aol.com> >Dear Ruletherod, > >I would be quite interested to know what you think you know about the letter >on "Individual Rights and Freedoms." You describe it as "apologetic." --Susan It's "apologetic" because it was written to defend a position. It was a put-down of "Western liberal democratic practices"..."regarding individual rights and freedoms of expression in the Baha'i community." The House stated: "A primary effort of the Baha'i community is to reduce conflict and contention." But they never address the problems of contention that arise when the administration is "too busy" or indifferent to respond to repeated individual appeals. They admit that "The principle of the individual's right to self-expression is at the root of the Baha'i Cause." But then they go on to say that "self-expression" and "constructive criticism" must never come at the expense of "unity." In other words, observe silence (and frustration) and don't rock the boat. In light of the Covenant, they emphasize, "dissidence is a moral and intellectual contradiction of the main objective of unifying humanity." But without justice, the Guardian said, there can be no unity! The House has its own conflict of interest in this proposition. The House uses vague, evasive terms in its appeal to Baha's "for solid thinking, for attaining correct perspectives, for adopting proper attitudes--all of which are impossible without a deep appreciation of Baha'i fundamentals." The fact that they weren't more specific tells me that they didn't have a full grasp of the subject they were talking about. But they moved ahead anyway in an effort to discourage further dissent--dissent they perceived as threatening their ability to govern. Less important was the fact that Baha'is were legitimately losing their faith in the UHJ. > Who do you think it was aimed at? All dissenting Bahai voices including scholars, writers, artists and gays. >Who were the "very people who would have the most to lose by such a >statement" which the House never consulted? The above mentioned people. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: Re: To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums Smaneck wrote in message <19981119172413.11624.00000404@ng89.aol.com>... >Dear friends, > >I thought I would share with you the some of exchanges I have had with Mr. >Glaysher on this topic so you may judge for yourself whether I refused to >consider his request. What you're not showing people here are the "exchanges" you ignored while inaccurately accusing me here of "spamming," a concept that fits email or newsgroup forums but not a Message Board with folders. Incidentally, I post the message in question to THREE folders, not the "several" Susan Maneck claims below.... The folders were For Non-Bahais, Question to the Forum Leader, and Announcement with reasonably different audiences for each one--by analogy, one outside the Principle's Office, one outside the Counselors' Office, one down by the cafeteria. Some AOL Bahais have tried this before. Maneck appears to me to follow similar tactics. For this and the manner in Wendy has behaved on AOL, harassing and denouncing other members, see https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm The CONTENT of the message, by the way, was my opposition to SUSAN MANECK becoming Forum Leader because she has demonstrated she is not capable, in my opinion, of dealing fairly with different opinions and voices.... I believe she further corroborates that assessment here.... She very much here follows "The Bahai Technique" of changing the subject, avoiding the real issues of censorship and manipulation of the Bahai Forums on AOL. In this, some might find reading the following document helpful: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm It needs to be pointed out that Susan Maneck on AOL and here ignores my and another AOL member's repeated requests: You can prove your fairness by implementing the following changes on AOL which I have been advocating since mid-August 1998 under Keyword search Bahai: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries finally functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Links [Web Sites] https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Also, let me say again, "Forum Leader" Mark Foster should resign immediately since he abandoned his duties on AOL several months ago which has worked just fine for the literalists and extremists among the Bahais, essentially freezing out change and variety of views from the "Bahai" forums.... Maneck will only continue such stratagems and duplicity in my opinion.... That is why I have written to Steve Case, AOL President, and urge others who care about freedom of speech and conscience to do the same. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >warmest, Susan Maneck > > >Subject: Re: folders >Date: 11/18/98 5:17 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981118171738.22313.00000331@ng88.aol.com> > >Fred asks: > >>If you become the Forum Leader here, will you be supporting the creation of >>this folder? > >Gee Fred, if we got an entire folder for the Jensenites why can't we have one >for you. :-) The question is if we created such a folder would postings on the >topic *stay* in that folder or would you continue to spam all the other >folders? > >Susan > >Subject: Re: To Steve Case re Bahai Forums >Date: 11/19/98 4:51 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981119165140.11624.00000391@ng89.aol.com> > >>The person proposed below by some has repeatedly >>refused to seriously consider the concerns I and others >>raise below. > >On the contrary, Mr. Glaysher. I suggested that if I became the forum leader I >might be willing to establish the censorship folder you requested if you were >willing to confine your posts on this topic to that folder and cease spamming >the other folders.Your response was to engage in futher spamming by placing the >same messages numerous times in virtually all the folders. As Wendy notes, it >is you who has continually ignored AOL guidelines for >appropriate behaviour on this board. > >warmest, Susan > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 7:10 AM Subject: fw Ruletherod Re: To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums fyi Subject: Re: Susan Maneck - Forum Leader? Date: 11/19/1998 9:25 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981119212552.10777.00000327@ng04.aol.com> >Since Mr. Glaysher appears to be trying to make common cause with Ruletherod >on this topic, I would like to hear whether Rule has any objections to my >serving in this capacity? >warmest, Susan I have no personal objections to Susan serving as Forum Leader as I believe she's well qualified. I also very much welcomed Fred as Forum Leader earlier. It's not about politics to me, playing one against the other. We just need to achieve results that tend to satisfy everyone, including Fred. Fred and I think that having a "censorship" folder available will dignify the open discussion of those issues. All should be made to feel welcome at this site (short of becoming ridiculous) , including sincere Muslims like Mahdi. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: Re: fw Ruletherod Re: To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums It should also be noted in this thread that Maneck's charge of my "spamming" on AOL was made before by Bahais wanting to silence me. They were successful in get the TOSGeneral in lodging a violation against me on this matter. When I requested that he investigate the matter and he did, he removed the TOS.... The full incident can be read at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai Chess Hazlett wrote in message ... >Hmm...the TRB proposal has been in the Proponent Questionnaire stage for how >long now? Is there a normal time elapsation process that we're following, >or are votetakers in short supply these days? Over twenty days, I think. We've basically have been waiting for a votetaker to become available. It seems several polls are finishing up now if you check the RESULTS on news.announce.newgroups and the Daily Update on news.groups. They'll get to us as soon as they can, I'm sure. There really isn't a normal timeframe involved. It's a matter of how many votetakers are willing to volunteer their time and effort, as far as my limited knowledge of the process goes. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 5:22 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai Dool Tracy wrote in message <19981120163928.19238.00000795@ng112.aol.com>... >I still dont understand what is the difference between TRB and ARB??????/ Let me try an analogy: An obscure local newspaper versus The New York Times.... Inexact, as all analogies are. Still, many servers do not carry the alt.* hierarchy. Almost all servers, if they carry any part of Usenet, have the Big 8 hierarchy of talk.* As has been pointed out in the past, many people who have voted YES during previous interest polls have not been able to access alt.religion.bahai and have effectively been shut out of all discussion that has taken place there. bahai-faith@egroups.com has somewhat helped but not sufficiently. It is cumbersome to post back and forth trying to compensate for the lack of one widely available newsgroup--talk.religion.bahai Hope this helps, as they say.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 5:25 PM Subject: Re: To Steve Case re AOL Bahai Forums Trying for a number of times now to reset the followups to alt.religion.bahai Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <3655EB90.DED1E968@usa.net>... > > >In response to Susan Maneck, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> What you're not showing people here are the "exchanges" >> you ignored . . . > >What's this?! An accusation of out of context quotations?! > >-saman > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 5:41 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha on conscience and liberty rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <734hh5$6a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >I think that of course this is correct, I do not share your view of my quotation of Abdu'l-Baha.... You may think your interpretation of it is "correct"; I, for one, think otherwise.... It seems to me you fail to perceive the importance of such passages, sweep them aside, and follow received wisdom too dogmatically. I share the respect Abdu'l-Baha expresses for free conscience and liberty.... The strangling of liberty on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere has achieved precisely the opposite of what the Master lauds so highly.... >In article <733mdo$dqj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > FG@hotmail.com wrote: >> "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." >> >> Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own >> > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 21, 1998 8:01 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Dr Richard A McKinley ON AOL Subject: Re: Susan Maneck - Forum Leader? Date: 11/20/1998 8:20 PM Eastern Standard Time From: RMckin6046 Message-id: <19981120202037.11328.00000567@ng32.aol.com> Fred answered my post: >>Would you accept me as Forum Host if AOL wants a new one? > >It depends. Would you > To answer Fred's questions: >1. add alt.religion.bahai to newsgroups and talk.religion.bahai when it is >created > Yes, if that were in my power, I would have already done so. >2. get the Libraries functioning and accepting all postings to them and >uncensored by Bahais > Yes, I already expressed my frustration with the library's inability to upload. >3. add my web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience to Web >Sites >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > Yes, yours and anyone else's that is devoted to the Baha'i Faith and its myriad facets. >4. It seems to me the UHJ's guidance needs to be followed. >Will you do so?... Yes, I always try to follow the guidance of the House of Justice. I particularly believe that the civil rights of all should be rigorously upheld. I have argued with and answered/refuted the declared BUPC and the Orthodox Baha'is on this board, even when I should have held my tongue, and I have regularly corresponded with Laaeterna who, as you know, has a unique perspective on the Faith. Despite my unapologetic stance in response to those who have attacked the Faith or taken contrarian views to the House of Justice, I have never stated or implied that they do not have a right, and even a duty, to post here as they please. The last thing that we need to do is to "persecute" the covenant breaker minority or any other minority opinions. Historically, this has never been a truly succesful counter to movements and/or ideas. >I believe it should also remove Mark Foster, preferrably appointing a >non-Bahai.... [snip] >I believe a non-Bahai or a Board representing a variety of views should be >appointed each with veto power on the model of balanced representative >government.... I, too, think that there should be a change, but I don't neccesarily agree that a non-Baha'i should be appointed host; although, if the host is a functionary who only screens posts for TOS violations, then I do not see why I would object to a non-Baha'i performing that function. I certainly do not see the need for a "board" of government. >I'm not convinced you won't prove as partisan a Leader as >the others.... What evidence is there to the contrary? > Well, I stated some of my history and beliefs above. You can take them at face value or read more into them as you wish. There is no evidence one way or the other that could convince you of anything; however, as I pointed out, I do not believe that the function of the forum host is that of "leader," or "censor," or final authority of anything. What I do believe is that the Forum Host should be involved with the Forum, interested in its development and workings, clear on its TOS rules, and responsive to the desires of our members/collaborators. In addition, I would hope that whoever is the Forum Host would be able to establish a working relationship with AOL management. As always, my best to you... Richard ----------------------------------------------------- Dr Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 21, 1998 8:01 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Dr Richard A McKinley ON AOL Subject: Re: Susan Maneck - Forum Leader? Date: 11/20/1998 8:20 PM Eastern Standard Time From: RMckin6046 Message-id: <19981120202037.11328.00000567@ng32.aol.com> Fred answered my post: >>Would you accept me as Forum Host if AOL wants a new one? > >It depends. Would you > To answer Fred's questions: >1. add alt.religion.bahai to newsgroups and talk.religion.bahai when it is >created > Yes, if that were in my power, I would have already done so. >2. get the Libraries functioning and accepting all postings to them and >uncensored by Bahais > Yes, I already expressed my frustration with the library's inability to upload. >3. add my web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience to Web >Sites >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > Yes, yours and anyone else's that is devoted to the Baha'i Faith and its myriad facets. >4. It seems to me the UHJ's guidance needs to be followed. >Will you do so?... Yes, I always try to follow the guidance of the House of Justice. I particularly believe that the civil rights of all should be rigorously upheld. I have argued with and answered/refuted the declared BUPC and the Orthodox Baha'is on this board, even when I should have held my tongue, and I have regularly corresponded with Laaeterna who, as you know, has a unique perspective on the Faith. Despite my unapologetic stance in response to those who have attacked the Faith or taken contrarian views to the House of Justice, I have never stated or implied that they do not have a right, and even a duty, to post here as they please. The last thing that we need to do is to "persecute" the covenant breaker minority or any other minority opinions. Historically, this has never been a truly succesful counter to movements and/or ideas. >I believe it should also remove Mark Foster, preferrably appointing a >non-Bahai.... [snip] >I believe a non-Bahai or a Board representing a variety of views should be >appointed each with veto power on the model of balanced representative >government.... I, too, think that there should be a change, but I don't neccesarily agree that a non-Baha'i should be appointed host; although, if the host is a functionary who only screens posts for TOS violations, then I do not see why I would object to a non-Baha'i performing that function. I certainly do not see the need for a "board" of government. >I'm not convinced you won't prove as partisan a Leader as >the others.... What evidence is there to the contrary? > Well, I stated some of my history and beliefs above. You can take them at face value or read more into them as you wish. There is no evidence one way or the other that could convince you of anything; however, as I pointed out, I do not believe that the function of the forum host is that of "leader," or "censor," or final authority of anything. What I do believe is that the Forum Host should be involved with the Forum, interested in its development and workings, clear on its TOS rules, and responsive to the desires of our members/collaborators. In addition, I would hope that whoever is the Forum Host would be able to establish a working relationship with AOL management. As always, my best to you... Richard ----------------------------------------------------- Dr Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 21, 1998 8:50 AM Subject: Re: fw Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... Am I the only one getting tired of hearing >about this? fglaysher quoted: > "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." > > Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Don't despair! We seem to have put together a reasonable, neutral, technical RFD for talk.religion.bahai that people of all points of view have said they can support and are willing to vote for! No small achievement after now TWO YEARS of struggling to get talk.religion.bahai passed.... Let's hope we don't have to have a fourth or fifth interest poll to redeem Abdu'l-Baha's high praise of conscience and liberty! But upholding his blest words would surely be worth any sacrifice.... It probably should be noted that a few news.groupies have expressed real frustration with Bahais' opposition to talk.religion.bahai. Forcing another poll next spring should really be avoided in the best interests of the Faith and the proper functioning of Usenet. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 21, 1998 4:55 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai Personal Reply. Greetings, Frederick. I've been out of cyberspace for the past several weeks. could you kindly e-mail me when the vote is called. I'm now trying to read through some of the backlog on this current round. I'm still largely pre-occupied with other matters, but my best wishes go with you and all seeking to open up discussion on this subject. May this find you very well, and may the future be even better. All the Best, Michael "Frederick Glaysher" (FG@hotmail.com) writes: > Chess Hazlett wrote in message ... >>Hmm...the TRB proposal has been in the Proponent Questionnaire stage for > how >>long now? Is there a normal time elapsation process that we're following, >>or are votetakers in short supply these days? > > Over twenty days, I think. We've basically have been > waiting for a votetaker to become available. It seems > several polls are finishing up now if you check the RESULTS > on news.announce.newgroups and the Daily Update on > news.groups. They'll get to us as soon as they can, I'm sure. > There really isn't a normal timeframe involved. It's a matter of > how many votetakers are willing to volunteer their time and > effort, as far as my limited knowledge of the process goes. > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 22, 1998 10:15 AM Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai That's an illegal talk.religion.bahai set up improperly without a legitimate interest poll by someone and therefore not recognize by most system administrators around the world. News.groupies recommended long ago that those interested in talk.religion.bahai should ignore it and not post to it. When trb passes properly, a command will be sent out by David Lawrence that will notify system administrators of the poll RESULTS, hopefully creating a trb that all can use.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Dool Tracy wrote in message <19981121160847.24849.00001135@ng06.aol.com>... >okay - this is getting a bit boring - just tell us when to vote for the trb - >as I have access to this newsgroup trb doesnt mean too much. > >btw I have access to a newgroup called TRB - which is rarely used? >what is that? > >regards > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:17 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Date: Monday, November 23, 1998 1:00 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > It probably should be noted that a few news.groupies > have expressed real frustration with Bahais' opposition to > talk.religion.bahai. Forcing another poll next spring should > really be avoided in the best interests of the Faith and the > proper functioning of Usenet. I want to second that. The interesting thing about the current state of play regarding TRB is how so many people of differing viewpoints have come together to work out a proposal that seems to satisfy everyone. At least, if anyone doesn't like it, they're not posting their objections. (So please. folks, if anyone is thinking of voting no, tell us what the beef is, maybe we can still fix it.) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:22 AM Subject: Re: fw Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL In addition to Ron House's counsel regarding NO votes, I'd like to add that we are now at day 27 looking for a votetaker for talk.religion.bahai.... It may be that the UVV is having some trouble finding someone willing to take it on. Since few objections have been raised and yet little support has been directly stated, it might help if some Bahais speak up.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm FG@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <736glp$ocf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... > >Am I the only one getting tired of hearing >>about this? > > >fglaysher quoted: >> "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." >> >> Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > >Don't despair! We seem to have put together a reasonable, >neutral, technical RFD for talk.religion.bahai that people of >all points of view have said they can support and are willing >to vote for! No small achievement after now TWO YEARS >of struggling to get talk.religion.bahai passed.... > >Let's hope we don't have to have a fourth or fifth interest poll to >redeem Abdu'l-Baha's high praise of conscience and liberty! >But upholding his blest words would surely be worth any >sacrifice.... > >It probably should be noted that a few news.groupies >have expressed real frustration with Bahais' opposition to >talk.religion.bahai. Forcing another poll next spring should >really be avoided in the best interests of the Faith and the >proper functioning of Usenet. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:36 AM Subject: REPOST - The Bahai Technique During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own: Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992: "The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. 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 life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself, which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the Truth." Ron House, November 14, 1997: "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." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Frederick Glaysher, June 1998: "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." Fran Baker, May 1998: "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, June 12, 1998: "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!" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998: "If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty] were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in their condemnations of their fellow believers, I would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've "got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not character assassination by innuendo, what is?" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson18.htm Gibro28W, October 12, 1998: "In summary, the biggest problem, as I see it, is that most Baha'is don't take criticism seriously--they tune it out as "negative" or "harmful to spiritual growth." This selfish attitude is very stupid. First of all, Baha'is entice people to join them. When they do, they indoctrinate them until they think like the group. But as soon as a red flare of doubt goes up in the convert's mind, they're cordoned off by the group and reminded of their "spiritual" obligations in the name of Baha'u'llah or the "Covenant." If left unresolved and doubt gives vent to prolonged criticism, the convert is sent packing or is kicked out. What we have here is a broken family that had failed to truly listen to the needs of its members in the first place." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb73.htm Barthaman on September 14, 1998: 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. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb66.htm Cf. K. Paul Johnson's general reflections on coercive techniques https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson21.htm And LaAeterna's method of silencing opponents https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb65.htm This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technieque.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:37 AM Subject: REPOST - soc.religion.bahai - Brief Quotations Kent Johnson: "It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously unjust." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm Ron House: "I think the following is a clear case of malicious rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm Timothy Mulligan: "(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those SRB moderators." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm RobertNik: "these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm Bruce Burrill: "What are Baha'i afraid of?" https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm Zuteflute: "Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm YU ZIR: "But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to address." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm Matthew Cromer: "The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles which they agree with...." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm Melissa Boyer Kafes: "For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm Harold Shinsato: "It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm Laeterna: "To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was putting it mildly indeed." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm Guy Macon" "Please explain which portion of the charter the following post violates." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm Robin Peters: "I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the face of consistent censorship." https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm jgoldberg: "I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. " https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under soc.religion.bahai censorship. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:38 AM Subject: alt.religion.bahai - FAQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@egroups.com November 23, 1998 This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.* hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to bahai-faith@egroups.com also allows people with only email access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed. Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities, including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access alt.religion.bahai. Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use. Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL) Keyword, Newsgroups, then search for alt.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below. Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?" ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to access talk.religion.bahai. Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?" ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list bahai-faith@egroups.com is also unmmoderated. Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?" ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and religious conscience. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.] Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place here] Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and conscience?" ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum, the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai Faith give reason for concern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted to news.announce.newgroups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO against talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in effect more than a year and a half later. March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to 691 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates alt.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA committee: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of Usenet interest polling: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was submitted. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES to 65 NO. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher that contain his signature file: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm September 9,1998: America Online (AOL) places a Bahai-inspired TOS against Frederick Glaysher; AOL removes the TOS after considering both sides of the issue, i.e., Bahai messages attacking and threatening him: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm September 14, 1998: soc.religion.bahai extends its ban on Frederick Glaysher's signature file to include all signature files and URLs from all posters, allowing only email addresses and the name of the poster: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srbban.htm October 14, 1998: Soc.religion.bahai moderator Bill Hyman backbites and casts aspersions on proponent Ron House and attempts to undermine the new support for the "neutral" RFD: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb67.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RFD for the 3rd interest poll for talk.religion.bahai was posted September 28, 1998; reposted on October 27, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the Web site below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAILING LIST: bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription & List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@egroups.com This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm This document at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/FAQ.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:40 AM Subject: REPOST - To Bahai UHJ - July 24, 1998 From: FG 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: As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community." The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media, always courting the President and other members of the government, has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997, available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals, Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within the Bahai community and administration. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/To-UHJ1.htm To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under Bahai-Discuss Archives. Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding talk.religion.bahai. The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai administration and perhaps the institutions themselves. I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if you will, of Bahai censorship? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:57 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL In addition to Ron House's counsel regarding NO votes, I'd like to add that we are now at day 27 looking for a votetaker for talk.religion.bahai.... It may be that the UVV is having some trouble finding someone willing to take it on. Since few objections have been raised and yet little support has been directly stated, it might help if some Bahais speak up.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm FG@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <736glp$ocf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ... > >Am I the only one getting tired of hearing >>about this? > > >fglaysher quoted: >> "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." >> >> Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > >Don't despair! We seem to have put together a reasonable, >neutral, technical RFD for talk.religion.bahai that people of >all points of view have said they can support and are willing >to vote for! No small achievement after now TWO YEARS >of struggling to get talk.religion.bahai passed.... > >Let's hope we don't have to have a fourth or fifth interest poll to >redeem Abdu'l-Baha's high praise of conscience and liberty! >But upholding his blest words would surely be worth any >sacrifice.... > >It probably should be noted that a few news.groupies >have expressed real frustration with Bahais' opposition to >talk.religion.bahai. Forcing another poll next spring should >really be avoided in the best interests of the Faith and the >proper functioning of Usenet. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 7:11 AM To: Ruletherod@aol.com Cc: FG@Hotmail.Com Subject: Re: Fw: More thoughts In a message dated 11/23/1998 5:43:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ruletherod writes: > ubj: Fw: More thoughts > Date: 11/23/1998 5:43:17 PM Eastern Standard Time > From: Ruletherod > To: Fglaysher > CC: Ruletherod > > Fred, I'm open to Richard McKinley too--I just haven't interacted much with > him. He > seems to be genuinely humble (when his indignation isn't sparked). He also > seems to have the kind of knowledge required. But does he want the post? He has told me he does in private email and has suggested as much on the Message Boards. > > I understand your hesitation about Susan. Sometimes I'm not sure where she > stands either. Based on her recent postings about history, she still sounds > more the apologist than the impartial thinker. But we have to remind > ourselves that people are often more complex than that. I'd hate to > underestimate anyone's potential here. Susan is never impartial nor fair in agruementation. Notice her completely ignoring everything I had to say of late and coming back with cute little quips.... > > I noticed something interesting the other day on the Bahai Studies list, > where I use a different screen name (Vango). I fielded a theory of mine about > the Bab's survival of the first volley in Tabriz, forwarding e-mail copies to > both Susan and Juan Cole, among others, hoping they would independently give > me their professional feedback. > Well, Juan gave me as much as I could hope for in his detailed response (I > wish he could continue expanding on that subject, in the form of a book, on > that whole Tabriz > episode, with the same close attention to descriptive detail--I'd buy the > first dozen copies!). > When Susan responded, it was mostly Bahai historian apologetics. She stuck > to her guns on the traditional account. It wasn't that she didn't agree with > me, it was that she wouldn't allow herself the freedom to seriously consider > it (before > rejecting it). I've seen her do this many times. I used to be on Bahai Studies and h-Bahai which she then was a "moderator" of.... Having said that, I still appreciated her comments. The great > thing about her in my book is that she understands our side of the street > better than the other > regulars. If we watch our language, so-to-speak, she'll be less inclined to > dismiss > our messages. The others often follow her lead (why her leadership could > work if she's a nonparty member). The herd would follow her more literalminded side too.... I'd rather take my chances with Richard McKinley. > Please keep my personal thoughts above confidential. > > Yeah, you're probably right about finishing what you've spent so much time > trying to > bring to fruition. My only suggestion there is to proceed with the diplomacy > of someone > who already sees the end in the beginning. Have your plans fully developed > and ready should a window open and the right person says, "O.K., Fred, run > with it--we'll give you six months to establish and prove your position." You may have misunderstood me above. I'm not sure what you're referring to. I definitely do not want to be Forum Leader on AOL. > Until later....Best wishes. Fred > ----------------- > Forwarded Message: > Subj: Re: Ideas? > Date: 11/23/1998 3:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time > From: Fglaysher > To: Ruletherod > > Thanks for all your thoughts. Susan and I go back probably > at least a year and a half. I'm not sure she has always been > fair or would be on AOL. That she has given short-shrift to > my recent serious postings does not win me over to her. > > Richard McKinley sp? might be a better candidate. I don't > know. Susan would preserve the status quo. She enjoys > the adjulation of the rank and file perhaps too much.... > > The problem really should be resolved now and not allowed > to continue, especially if most will agree on anyone who > can then be at least held to account later.... > > Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL The UVV is apparently have trouble finding someone willing to serve as a votetaker. I shan't speculate on why.... When the interest poll, not vote, begins, it will be announced on those groups listed on the RFD, including alt.religion.bahai and news.groups. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Thomas wrote in message ... >In article <73bg82$iau@news3.newsguy.com>, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> I want to second that. The interesting thing about the current state of >> play regarding TRB is how so many people of differing viewpoints have >> come together to work out a proposal that seems to satisfy everyone. At >> least, if anyone doesn't like it, they're not posting their objections. >> (So please. folks, if anyone is thinking of voting no, tell us what the >> beef is, maybe we can still fix it.) > >Is there a vote going on right now? If so, where? > >-- >Please reply via email >lightspring@jps.net ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: Re: TRB is up? Thomas wrote in message ... >My ISP shows TRB as an available NG. I'll test it. > >-- >Please reply via email >lightspring@jps.net It's a bogus newsgroup not properly created with an interest poll and therefore not carried by most ISPs. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 6:09 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <365ACB98.6094@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >FG@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> >> In addition to Ron House's counsel regarding NO votes, >> I'd like to add that we are now at day 27 looking for a >> votetaker for talk.religion.bahai.... It may be that the UVV >> is having some trouble finding someone willing to take >> it on. Since few objections have been raised and yet >> little support has been directly stated, it might help if >> some Bahais speak up.... >> > >With the holidays (and ensuing academic shutdowns) coming up, perhaps >now is not an opportune time to conduct a vote. I'm speculating here, >but it seems a likely explanation. You're probably right. It would most likely be best to wait until after the Thanksgiving vacation. Largely wasted time otherwise. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 1998 2:15 PM Subject: REPOST - Abdu'l-Baha on conscience & liberty "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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 1998 2:19 PM Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re Bahai Censorship folder on AOL Thomas, I've tried to reply to you a couple of times.... It seems my posts are getting lost in cyberspace or somewhere.... The interest poll has not yet begun, but I hope it does immediately after the Thanksgiving break on Monday or very soon thereafter.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Thomas wrote in message ... >In article <73bg82$iau@news3.newsguy.com>, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> I want to second that. The interesting thing about the current state of >> play regarding TRB is how so many people of differing viewpoints have >> come together to work out a proposal that seems to satisfy everyone. At >> least, if anyone doesn't like it, they're not posting their objections. >> (So please. folks, if anyone is thinking of voting no, tell us what the >> beef is, maybe we can still fix it.) > >Is there a vote going on right now? If so, where? > >-- >Please reply via email >lightspring@jps.net ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 1998 2:22 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <365ACB98.6094@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >FG@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> >> In addition to Ron House's counsel regarding NO votes, >> I'd like to add that we are now at day 27 looking for a >> votetaker for talk.religion.bahai.... It may be that the UVV >> is having some trouble finding someone willing to take >> it on. Since few objections have been raised and yet >> little support has been directly stated, it might help if >> some Bahais speak up.... >> > >With the holidays (and ensuing academic shutdowns) coming up, perhaps >now is not an opportune time to conduct a vote. I'm speculating here, >but it seems a likely explanation. I would think it should start immediately on Monday if possible. The poll only lasts for two weeks. Many students at universities will begin to concentrate on exams and finishing up for the semester, so we shouldn't wait too long.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 1998 2:52 PM Subject: 4,700 + hits on Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience As of today, there are over 4,719 hits since May 8, 1998 on the Bahai page of my web site.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:01 AM Subject: Re: How Soc.Religion.Bahai Censures the truth about Bahai activities.... Quite typical of the way soc.religion.bahai "moderators" operate.... For other similar examples see https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <73qaco$j4d$1@supernews.com>... >A few weeks ago, these guys censured my reply to Bahai missionaries >who routinely misquote and misrepresenting Islamic Scriptures on SRB. >Now, they think they have found some good reason to reject what really >are answers to well known Bahai misquotations of Quran.... >================================================== > >-----Original Message----- >From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >To: Kavosh Soltani >Cc: srb >Date: Saturday, November 28, 1998 1:14 AM >Subject: Re: Another Example of How Bahai Scholars and Missionaries Misguide >their Unfortunate Followers > > >>Kavosh: >> >>I am returning your submission for several reasons. >> >>1. The title is disrespectful to another world religion. >> >>2. Your statement, "If anything, it is the Bahai scholars and missionaries >>who are guilty of knowingly spreading falsehood about the >>teachings of Al-Islam," is conjecture and unproven. Baha'is would certainly >>uphold everything in the Koran >>as true, but not necessarily your interpretation of it, or, in fact, the >>interpretation of anyone now living. >> >>3. I do not remember seeing the original submission from Rachel posted on >>this forum, and, even if it was, >>she is not a Baha'i but a follower of Al-Islam. You are therefore aguing >>Islamic points with someone from >>your own faith and that is not the purpose of this forum. >> >>I am forwarding this submission to Rachel so that she can reply to you. >> >>Bill Hyman >>co-moderator >>soc.religion.bahai >>---------- >>From: "Kavosh Soltani" >>To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>Subject: Another Example of How Bahai Scholars and Missionaries Misguide >>their Unfortunate Followers >>Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:34:03 -0500 >> >>Rachel r.woodlock@bigfoot.com (a Bahai) wrote: >>>Allah may have protected His deen, but He also warned that if Muslims fail >>>like the previous generations He would raise up *another* people ... >>> a threat >to not take one's position as holders of Allah's Word for >>> granted! >>> >>>"...If ye turn back (from the Path), He will substitute in your >>> stead another people; then they would not be like you!" >>> Surah Muhammad 47:38 >> >>I see that once more you are just repeating what the "scholars" >>of your faith have been falsely claiming for years. As I mentioned >>before, even if I were to mistakenly accept the quotes you have >>presented as being addressed to Muslims, we still will not have >>what you are claiming to be presenting in support of new religions >>after Al-Islam. As long as there are any of us fulfilling our obligation >>(and there are millions of us), we have not turned our back to faith. >> >>Now, Rachel isn't rejecting the clear word of God in favor of mere >>conjecture the biggest problem with Christianity? Is it not dangerous >>for you to follow in their steps? >> >>If you allow me, I will, enshaAllah, show how wrong it is to quote >>this passage as you have. Let's read the sentence within proper >>context: >> >> "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger, >> and make not vain your deeds! >> >> Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of >> Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them. >> >> Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye >> should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put >> you in loss for your (good) deeds. >> >> The life of this world is but play and amusement: and if ye >> believe and guard against Evil, He will grant you your >> recompense, and will not ask you (to give up) your possessions. >> >> If He were to ask you for all of them, and press you, ye would >> covetously withhold, and He would bring out all your ill-feeling. >> >> Behold, ye are those invited to spend (of your substance) in >> the Way of Allah: But among you are some that are niggardly. >> But any who are niggardly are so at the expense of their own >> souls. But Allah is free of all wants, and it is ye that are needy. >> If ye turn back (from the Path), He will substitute in your stead >> another people; then they would not be like you!" >> (The holy Quran, 47:33-38) >> >>I do not see how anyone can claim that this is a warning to Muslims >>and a proof that prophethood will continue! This obviously is a >>warning to those who: >> >> 1. Are niggardly; >> >> 2. Reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah >> (i.e. follow false faiths or engage in vain talk). >> >>>"It is We Who have sent down the Qur'án to thee by stages... >>>It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints strong; >>>but, when We will, We can substitute the like of them by a >>>complete change. This is an admonition: Whosoever will, let him >>>take a (straight) Path to his Lord." >>>Surah Ad-Dahr 76:23,28-9 >> >>Once more, allow us to look at this passage within proper context: >> >> "It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an to thee by stages. >> >> Therefore be patient with constancy to the Command of thy >> Lord, and hearken not to the sinner or the ingrate among them. >> >> And celebrate the name or thy Lord morning and evening, >> >> And part of the night, prostrate thyself to Him; and glorify Him >> a long night through. >> >> As to these, they love the fleeting life, and put away behind >> them a Day (that will be) hard. >> >> It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints >> strong; but, when We will, We can substitute the like of >> them by a complete change. >> >> This is an admonition: Whosoever will, let him take a (straight) >> Path to his Lord." >> (The holy Quran, 76:23-29) >> >>How can you claim this to be a reference to Muslims, when the >>Merciful Allah(the Exalted) has addressed it clearly to those who >>"love the fleeting life, and put away behind them a Day (day of >>Judgment) hard". Perhaps, if you had included the entire passage, >>you would not have made such a gross mistake and would not >>have said of Allah(the Exalted) what is not true... >> >>>"Now I do call to witness the Lord of all points in the East and the West >>>that We can certainly- Substitute for them better (men) than they; And We >>>are not to be defeated (in Our Plan)." Surah Al-Ma'arij 70:40-41 >> >>I hope you do see a pattern here! I am a Muslim, a follower of >>truth and clear guidance. I hope I will not be accused of being an >>"anti-Bahai apologetic", when all I am doing is setting the record >>straight, standing for truth, and showing the true teachings of >>Al-Islam. If anything, it is the Bahai scholars and missionaries >>who are guilty of knowingly spreading falsehood about the >>teachings of Al-Islam. >> >>Let's read this passage also within the proper context: >> >> "Now what is the matter with the Unbelievers that they rush >> madly before thee- >> >> From the right and from the left, in crowds? >> >> Does every man of them long to enter the Garden of Bliss? >> >> By no means! For We have created them out of the (base >> matter) they know! >> >> Now I do call to witness the Lord of all points in the East >> and the West that We can certainly- >> >> Substitute for them better (men) than they; And We are not >> to be defeated (in Our Plan). >> >> So leave them to plunge in vain talk and play about, until >> they encounter that Day of theirs which they have been promised!- >> >> The Day whereon they will issue from their sepulchres in >> sudden haste as if they were rushing to a goal-post (fixed >> for them),- >> >> Their eyes lowered in dejection,- ignominy covering them >> (all over)! such is the Day the which they are promised!" >> (The Holy Quran, 70:36:44) >> >>I hope you see how this passage is also addressed to >>"Unbelievers" and not Muslims. The passage immediately >>before that was addressed to Muslims; those interested >>are referred to an accurate translation of the holy Quran. >> >>>"We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, >>>an illustration from (the story of) people who passed away >>>before you, and an admonition for those who fear (God)." >>>Surah An-Nur 24:34 >> >>How does this help your case? Isn't Allah(the Exalted) >>saying: we ALREADY sent down (in Al-Islam) verse making >>THINGS CLEAR? Then why would we need new guidance? >> >>Ps. I am not asking for more conjecture, but clear evidence. >> >>>"To every people is a term appointed: when their term is >>>reached, not an hour can they cause delay, nor (an hour) >>>can they advance (it in anticipation). >>> >>>O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you apostles >>>from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who >>>are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no >>>fear nor shall they grieve." Surah Al-A'araf 7:34-5 >> >>The entire chapter of Al-A'raf (7) deals with those who ignored >>the covenant Allah had taken from them (to follow Messengers >>of Allah - and no one else) and allowed themselves to be guided >>astray. In your example (Quran, 7:35), we really need to go >>back to (7:24) and study the entire passage to see what Quran >>is actually talking about and who is being addressed. >> >>This, as recorded in hadith and books of tafseer, is an address >>by Allah to Adam and his children at the beginning of creation. >>This promise was certainly fulfilled through the 124,000 prophets >>and 315 Messengers commissioned to mankind. >> >>As I've repeatedly mentioned, Allah has told us to understand >>the verses of the Quran in light of other verses and the explanation >>of the Prophet(pbuh). The passage you mentioned is also recorded >>in several other chapters of the Quran (all discussions which took >>place at the time of creation), and leave no doubt who is being >>addressed. For instance, we read: >> >> "We said: "Get ye down all from here (Garden); and if, >> as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, >> whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no >> fear, nor shall they grieve. >> >> But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they >> shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide there in." >> (The holy Quran, 2:38-39) >> >> He said: "Get ye down, both of you,- all together, >> from the Garden, with enmity one to another: but if, >> as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, >> whosoever follows My Guidance, will not lose his way, >> nor fall into misery. >> >> But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for >> him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him >> up blind on the Day of Judgment." >> (The holy Quran, 20:123-124) >> >>I hope you see the absolute similarities and how what Allah >>is speaking of is the covenant taken from all people at the >>beginning of Life. >> >>But, the same Creator who took this covenant from all people >>at the time of creation, has also clearly told us that Al-Islam >>is the very last revelation and the way to salvation. So, this >>verse can only apply to Non-Muslims who are ignoring their >>covenant with Allah and are following false religions. Just so >>that we are on the same page, let me review: >> >>1. The verse does not say: "O You Believers" or "O Muslims"; >> >>2. There are other verses which indicate this must have taken >> place at the time of creation; >> >>3. The verse says "...If there come to you...", but Allah has clearly >> told humanity that Al-Islam is the Perfected, Completed, Protected, >> and Universal religion and the only deen accepted from humanity; >> >>4. Every Muslim is a Messenger of the Messenger of Allah(pbuh). >> When we recite Quran/Hadith, and enjoin good/discourage evil, >> we are doing exactly the same thing our Prophet(pbuh) did. We >> are delivering the same exact message to the humanity (but not >> creating new faiths or religions); >> >>Lastly, I like to point one more fundamental concept and >>teaching of Islam contained in the short verse you mentioned: >> >>5. The verse says "... If there come to you messengers from >> AMONGST YOU...". >> >> "From Amongst you", meaning human being and not God, >> Son of God, Manifestation of God, or Angels... >> >> This idea is supported by many verse of the holy Quran; >> for instance: >> >> Allah did confer a great favor on the believers when >> He sent among them a messenger FROM AMONG >> THEMSELVES, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, >> sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and >> Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. >> (The Holy Quran, 3.164) >> >> And on the Day of Judgment, people will be reminded of >> this warning of Allah: >> >> The Unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd: until, >> when they arrive, there, its gates will be opened. >> And its keepers will say, "Did not messengers come >> to you from among yourselves, rehearsing to you the >> Signs of your Lord, and warning you of the Meeting >> of This Day of yours?" The answer will be: "True: >> but the Decree of Punishment has been proved true >> against the Unbelievers!" (The Holy Quran, 39.71) >> >> "O ye assembly of Jinns and men! came there not unto >> you messengers from amongst you, setting forth unto >> you My signs, and warning you of the meeting of this >> Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against >> ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived >> them. So against themselves will they bear witness that >> they rejected Faith. (The Holy Quran, 6.130) >> >> About the perfection of Al-Islam and the duty of all people to >> embrace it whole-heatedly, we read: >> >> "Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority >> in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their desires after the >> knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou >> find neither protector nor defender against Allah." >> (The holy Quran, 13.37) >> >> "Had We sent down this Qur'an on a mountain, verily, >> thou wouldst have seen it humble itself and cleave >> asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the similitudes >> which We propound to men, that they may reflect." >> (The holy Quran, 59.21) >> >> Verily this Qur'an doth explain to the Children of >> Israel most of the matters in which they disagree. >> And it certainly is A GUIDE and a Mercy to those >> WHO BELIEVE. >> (The holy Quran, 27.76-77) >> >> (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness >> (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil. >> (The holy Quran, 39.28) >> >> We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and >> We will assuredly GUARD IT (from corruption). >> (The holy Quran, 15.9) >> >>In short, I do not see how these kind of misquotations and >>unfounded "interpretation" of Bahai scholars would cause >>any knowledgeable believer to ignore hundreds of clear >>passages of Islamic Scripture telling us of the Finality of >>Prophethood and Message. >> >>Allah is not our enemy nor the author of confusion. But People >>at times ignore the obvious and resort to false arguments to resist >>submitting to the will of the Creator. Some reject Allah altogether >>and others reject Him by rejecting his perfect religion and following >>man-made ways which are more compatible with their own desires... >> >>As I have repeatedly pointed out, Muslims are submitters to the >>Guidance sent down by the Merciful Creator. I already produced >>a few dozen of hundreds of clear passages of Muslim Scripture >>which indicate no new faith will be born. It is very disturbing to me >>that there were no relies to my posting except conjectures and >>misrepresentation of clear words of God. >> >>I hope those who truly believe in God, realize that a faith whose >>leaders and missionaries are actively engaged in spreading >>falsehood about another faith can not be divine... >> >>Rachel, I hope that you will reflect upon all the evidence so far >>provided, realize the falsehood of Bahaism, and submit to the >>Merciful Creator in Al-Islam. >> >>=========================================================== >>None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers. >>Let not, then, their strutting about through the land deceive thee! >>(The holy Quran, 40.4) >> >>O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow >>not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy. >>(The holy Quran, 2.208) >> >>Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but >>Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even >>though the Unbelievers may detest (it). >>(The holy Quran, 9.32) > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai It seems to me that this message posted to alt.religion.bahai is a timely example of the type of censorship that people from many perspectives believe they have experienced at the hands of the "moderators" of soc.religion.bahai.... Other than a free, open, unmoderated talk.religion.bahai, I don't see how this kind of thing will ever end.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <73qc89$lm6$1@supernews.com>... >-----Original Message----- >From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >To: Kavosh Soltani >Cc: srb >Date: Saturday, November 28, 1998 1:14 AM >Subject: Re: Another Example of How Bahai Scholars and Missionaries Misguide >their Unfortunate Followers > > >>I am returning your submission for several reasons. >> >>1. The title is disrespectful to another world religion. >> >>2. Your statement, "If anything, it is the Bahai scholars and missionaries >>who are guilty of knowingly spreading falsehood about the >>teachings of Al-Islam," is conjecture and unproven.... > >I am sending this to you and also to several public forums. > >I am very amused with your statements. Firstly, your assertion >that Bahaism is a world religion is conjecture and an unproven >fact which is reject by every Muslim. Secondly, routinely you >and your collegues allow anti-Islamic postings by Bahai >missionaries on your forum and then censure any follow up, >clarification, or reply by Muslims. > >What kind of a "newsgroup" is this? Is this a newsgroups about >Bahaism, as it should be, or a house of Bahai missionaries and >a forum for Bahais to openly misrepresent the teachings of a >World Religion and offend Muslims? If you like to carry out with >your missionary efforts to attack Islam without hearing the truth >from Muslims, I suggest you get a private mailing list. If you allow >a Bahai to make a posting on Islam on your forum (as you routinely >do with finality of prophethood, Day of Judgment, etc.), it is >dishonest not to allow Muslims to provide a reply. > >I have had many complaints from Muslims on this issue and >know that the biased standard used by SRB is unlike that of any >other soc.religion.xxx newsgroup. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:13 AM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais For more than two years now I've read messages from Muslims complaining about being censored on soc.religion.bahai. I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai. The actual voting for the interest poll should begin this week on the group called news.groups Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <73qaem$poe$1@supernews.com>... >A few weeks ago, these guys censured my reply to Bahai missionaries >who routinely misquote and misrepresenting Islamic Scriptures on SRB. >Now, they reject my brief follow up to a lenghty posting by a Bahai about >an "ayatollah" allegedly attacking Iranian government, as quoted in an >anti-regime and biased publication. >================================================== > >-----Original Message----- >From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >To: Kavosh Soltani >Cc: mods >Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 5:35 PM >Subject: Re: ayatollah attacks persecution > > >>Dear Kavosh: >>If you relate your submission directly to the Baha'i Faith or its teachings >>I can post it. >>Bill Hyman >>co-moderator >>soc.religion.bahai >>---------- >>> From: "Kavosh Soltani" >>> To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >>> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>> Subject: Re: ayatollah attacks persecution >>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:51:05 -0500 >>> >>>Andrew Turvey wrote in message <"L2PXlD.A.IMF.84bX2"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>>>Iran Press Service... >>> >>>Iran press service is an anti-regime news program ran by people >>>who rely on heresay and second hand propaganda in the West... >>>Their "news reports" are highly suspect and highly biased... >>> >>>Regards. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:26 AM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.Bahai Censues and is Biased against Muslims You raise the real issue here in this message: how to stop the distortions and manipulation of Usenet imposed on soc.religion.bahai by its "moderators." I, for my part, came to the conclusion, long ago, as have others, that only a free and unmoderated forum can remedy the situation and allow people of all persuasions and opinions the necessary latitude to state candidly their views on any issue relating to the Bahai Faith.... There are really only two ways of correcting the situation: creating an alternative newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai, which I have been attempting to do now for TWO YEARS or rmgrouping soc.religion.bahai.... Either approach requires a vote and the perceiving of the severity of the situation by many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, people of religious faith as well as of other views of the nature of human existence.... Thank you for candidly stating your experience at this time. Please share with us any other information you might have that might help us understand what has transpired against Muslims posting to soc.religion.bahai.... Again, it's important to understand your frustration isn't unique; many, many Muslims and non-Muslims have said similar things. You might want to look at their complaints against srb at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <73qbat$3gf$1@supernews.com>... >Many Muslims have complaint that while the "moderators" allow >anti-Islamic propaganda by Bahai missionaries on their forum, >they block every reply by Muslims who attempt to expose the >falsehood of their faith and their ideas. Over the last years and >half I have repeatedly been blocked, even when I have just >provided a reply to a Bahai initiated statement. > >Does anyone know how we can put a stop to this or get the >internet community not to carry their propaganda material >disguised as a newsgroup? If they want a forum to say >anything they like about Bahaism and deny those who know >the truth from freely speaking, let them create a private mailing >list... soc.religion.xxx are forums about a religion and not >exclusively for the followers of a particular faith. > >Regards. > > > ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 7:53 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Newgroup Advice Mailing List Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai > Message ID: <003a01be1c53$870d1f40$662ab3c7@glaysher.Library> > From: FG > Date: Mon Nov 30 06:20:44 1998 > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Questionnaire has now been in since the 6th of November with > 34 days on the RFD. Any chance we can start the interest poll > immediately? TODAY would not be too soon, if possible. I'm worried > we're getting otherwise too close to the next holiday break and should > then just wait again for January 1999, which I don't want to do! The major delay has been finding a volunteer to take this CFV. Given the difficulties associated with the previous proposal, this is taking more time to accomplish than a "normal" proposal. I have a tentative volunteer at the moment, but that person's work schedule over the next couple of weeks is not yet firmed up. In addition, we're waiting to hear from Tale regarding the Holiday break dates. We don't want to start any CFVs and then not give individuals a realistic opportunity to vote due to the December holidays. I understand your concerns and appreciate your patience. Hopefully we'll know something soon. If you have a "cutoff" date after which you would prefer to have your proposal's CFV held until January, please let me know. This time of the year is always hectic for everybody and sometimes it's best to hold off until January if the start of the CFV is delayed too far into December. FYI, a delay for this reason will not require a new RFD to be posted since the delay would be beyond your control. -- Bill Aten Member of UVV ============================================================================== ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 6:20 AM To: UVV; Bill Aten Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai The Questionnaire has now been in since the 6th of November with 34 days on the RFD. Any chance we can start the interest poll immediately? TODAY would not be too soon, if possible. I'm worried we're getting otherwise too close to the next holiday break and should then just wait again for January 1999, which I don't want to do! From the UVV Daily update: A Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) is on file for the following proposal. We are actively seeking a votetaker for this proposal so that it may proceed to the CFV phase. PROPOSAL First RFD Last RFD PQ RFD Age talk.religion.bahai 28 Sep 27 Oct 6 Nov 34 Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129120707.08734.00002023@ng123.aol.com>... >> >>I would think it should start immediately on Monday >>if possible. The poll only lasts for two weeks. Many >>students at universities will begin to concentrate >>on exams and finishing up for the semester, so we >>shouldn't wait too long.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 6:20 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai The Questionnaire has now been in since the 6th of November with 34 days on the RFD. Any chance we can start the interest poll immediately? TODAY would not be too soon, if possible. I'm worried we're getting otherwise too close to the next holiday break and should then just wait again for January 1999, which I don't want to do! From the UVV Daily update: A Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) is on file for the following proposal. We are actively seeking a votetaker for this proposal so that it may proceed to the CFV phase. PROPOSAL First RFD Last RFD PQ RFD Age talk.religion.bahai 28 Sep 27 Oct 6 Nov 34 Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129120707.08734.00002023@ng123.aol.com>... >> >>I would think it should start immediately on Monday >>if possible. The poll only lasts for two weeks. Many >>students at universities will begin to concentrate >>on exams and finishing up for the semester, so we >>shouldn't wait too long.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:14 AM To: Bill Aten Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Thanks for your response. I really think the poll would have to finish no later than the 20th or 21st of December to be effective. If it goes beyond that date the holidays would affect voter turnout. I definitely do not want the poll to go into next year if it can be avoided. This happened last year and many people got tired and went away. It may have already happened.... Isn't there any way someone can start it right away? Everything has gone much better this time. I'd hate to lose the chance of passing talk.religion.bahai now because of basically technical reasons. Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: Bill Aten To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Newgroup Advice Mailing List Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 11:54 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >> Message ID: <003a01be1c53$870d1f40$662ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >> From: FG >> Date: Mon Nov 30 06:20:44 1998 >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> The Questionnaire has now been in since the 6th of November with >> 34 days on the RFD. Any chance we can start the interest poll >> immediately? TODAY would not be too soon, if possible. I'm worried >> we're getting otherwise too close to the next holiday break and should >> then just wait again for January 1999, which I don't want to do! > >The major delay has been finding a volunteer to take this CFV. Given the >difficulties associated with the previous proposal, this is taking more >time to accomplish than a "normal" proposal. > >I have a tentative volunteer at the moment, but that person's work schedule >over the next couple of weeks is not yet firmed up. In addition, we're >waiting to hear from Tale regarding the Holiday break dates. We don't want >to start any CFVs and then not give individuals a realistic opportunity to >vote due to the December holidays. > >I understand your concerns and appreciate your patience. Hopefully we'll >know something soon. If you have a "cutoff" date after which you would >prefer to have your proposal's CFV held until January, please let me know. >This time of the year is always hectic for everybody and sometimes it's >best to hold off until January if the start of the CFV is delayed too far >into December. FYI, a delay for this reason will not require a new RFD >to be posted since the delay would be beyond your control. > >-- >Bill Aten Member of UVV >=========================================================================== === ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai Pat Kohli wrote in message <366211D7.1FC785DF@mail.ameritel.net>... Soltani wrote: >Please identify the anti-Islamic postings. [on soc.religion.bahai] > >> What kind of a "newsgroup" is this? Is this a newsgroups about >> Bahaism, as it should be, or a house of Bahai missionaries and >> a forum for Bahais to openly misrepresent the teachings of a >> World Religion and offend Muslims? If you like to carry out with >> your missionary efforts to attack Islam without hearing the truth >> from Muslims, I suggest you get a private mailing list. If you allow >> a Bahai to make a posting on Islam on your forum (as you routinely >> do with finality of prophethood, Day of Judgment, etc.), it is >> dishonest not to allow Muslims to provide a reply. > >srb is a moderated news group. I've gotten a rejection message from Mr. >Hyman as well. If you wish to discuss finality of prophethood or Day of >Judgement, there are open threads on those topics right here at arb. > You're missing the whole point of Mr. Soltani's message: he and others want to respond on soc.religion.bahai to messages that are posted ON soc.religion.bahai--a fair and reasonable request.... Shunting him and other Muslims off to alt.religion.bahai is not right.... >> I have had many complaints from Muslims on this issue and >> know that the biased standard used by SRB is unlike that of any >> other soc.religion.xxx newsgroup. And this is why you and other Muslims really should help create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith--talk.religion.bahai The soc.religion.bahai "moderators" are simply never going to deal fairly with you and other Muslims--They don't even with other BAHAIS!!! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:23 AM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais Roger Reini wrote in message <3663f46c.49475594@news.newsguy.com>... >IMHO, if you had phrased your reply somewhat differently, attempting >to tie it in some way to the Faith or to the plight of its believers >in the land of its birth, it might have passed muster. There's nothing wrong with the way he phrased it in the first place. The soc.religion.bahai "moderators" would have censored his message no matter what--Soltani's a Muslim--that's offense enough as far as they're concerned. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > >On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:18:33 -0500, "Kavosh Soltani" > wrote: > >>A few weeks ago, these guys censured my reply to Bahai missionaries >>who routinely misquote and misrepresenting Islamic Scriptures on SRB. >>Now, they reject my brief follow up to a lenghty posting by a Bahai about >>an "ayatollah" allegedly attacking Iranian government, as quoted in an >>anti-regime and biased publication. >>================================================== >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >>To: Kavosh Soltani >>Cc: mods >>Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 5:35 PM >>Subject: Re: ayatollah attacks persecution >> >> >>>Dear Kavosh: >>>If you relate your submission directly to the Baha'i Faith or its teachings >>>I can post it. >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai >>>---------- >>>> From: "Kavosh Soltani" >>>> To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >>>> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>>> Subject: Re: ayatollah attacks persecution >>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:51:05 -0500 >>>> >>>>Andrew Turvey wrote in message <"L2PXlD.A.IMF.84bX2"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>>>>Iran Press Service... >>>> >>>>Iran press service is an anti-regime news program ran by people >>>>who rely on heresay and second hand propaganda in the West... >>>>Their "news reports" are highly suspect and highly biased... >>>> >>>>Regards. >> >> > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:29 AM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims dareve@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <73sqtk$2i6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Kavosh, > > If you want to post anything about Baha'is then do so on alt.religion.bahai >. This is an unmoderated discussion group which many Baha'is read. His whole point is that he and other Muslims want to respond on soc.religion.bahai and are routinely suppressed and censored by the "moderators" for specious, questionable reasons.... He and other Muslims really should recognize that an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith is really in their own best interests. Only then can Muslims as well as other people state their opinions without some Bahai fanatic screening them out or shunting them off to some other forum. Fortunately, the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, just such a forum, is about to begin on news.groups Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm I would >like to respond to a few things that you wrote: > > >In article <73qbba$k57$1@supernews.com>, > "Kavosh Soltani" wrote: >> Many Muslims have complaint that while the "moderators" allow >> anti-Islamic propaganda by Bahai missionaries on their forum, >> they block every reply by Muslims who attempt to expose the >> falsehood of their faith and their ideas. > >Darrick: Anti-Islamic propaganda? Does this mean Baha'is say that Muhammad >was a fraud? Baha'is tell me that Muhammad was a Prophet. You mean >"anti-Shi'ite" propaganda? Well, I've never seen Baha'is say _anything_ >negative about Shi'ism. In fact, Shoghi Effendi said that American Baha'is >should study Shi'ite Islam; to bring them closer to understanding the Words >of Baha'u'llah. How can a religion which claims that Muhammad was a Prophet >and Islam the Religion of God for 1200 years be called "anti-Islamic"? > > Over the last years and >> half I have repeatedly been blocked, even when I have just >> provided a reply to a Bahai initiated statement. > >Darrick: You can reply to it on alt.religion.bahai . Just erase >"soc.religion.bahai" and write "alt.religion.bahai" in the Group space in the >Reply Box. > >> Does anyone know how we can put a stop to this or get the >> internet community not to carry their propaganda material >> disguised as a newsgroup? > >Darrick: Isn't that censorship? Would you want alt.religion.islam to be >"blocked" because some people didn't like the posts there? It is common for >Muslims to deny Baha'is basic rights, and then "scream" unfairness when >Baha'is try to control their own space. > >If they want a forum to say >> anything they like about Bahaism and deny those who know >> the truth from freely speaking, let them create a private mailing >> list... soc.religion.xxx are forums about a religion and not >> exclusively for the followers of a particular faith. > >Darrick: Actually, the soc.religion forums are moderated forums controlled by >the moderators of the Faith they represent. Free discussion is why there are >unmoderated forums: like alt.religion.islam . > > Muslims reject the Baha'i Faith because: > >1) There are no Prophets after Muhammad. > >Reply: Was Muhammad the Last Prophet for all time? If this is so, then how >can the Imam Mahdi and Jesus return to the Earth? Were they not Prophets? How >can They (Prophets) come back if Muhammad was the last of the Prophets? If >the Imam Mahdi and Jesus return to the earth, won't they be considered "false >prophets" because Muhammad said no further prophets would come? > >2) The Baha'i Faith distorts the teachings of the Qur'an. > >Reply: Really? I've read many of the writings of the Imams, like the Imam >Jafar al-Sadiq ibn Muhammad: the 6th Imam. He wrote in his *Book of >Foundations* that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet Muslims say this is a false >teaching. Was the Imam Jafar al-Sadiq then also a false teacher? The >Usuliyyah of Iran reject the words of the Imams, but the Akbariyyah and >Baha'is believe them. The Usuliyyah make their own laws and interpretations; >throughing out the divine wisdom of the Imams. The Iranian Revolution is 100% >Usuliyyah. > >3) Baha'is are working as spies for Zionist Israel. > >Reply: What of it? Have there been no "Muslims" who have worked as spies for >the British, or the French, or the Soviet Union? Does that mean ALL Muslims >are spies, and should be killed without mercy? If you took all the true spies >for Israel that were Baha'is you could fit them all on a school bus, and have >room left-over. Is it right to kill innocent men, women, and childen in Iran >because of the actions of a few who "claim" to be "Baha'is"? > >4) Baha'is supported the evil regime of the Shah. > >Reply: How many "Muslims" did also? Were not in fact most of his >supporters--including perhaps ALL member of SAVAK, professing "Muslims"? >Baha'is did not oppose the reign of the Shah because they are commanded not >to oppose any government; even evil ones. They don't oppose the Iranian >Revolution; although it has caused the deaths of hundreds of Baha'is, the >rape of hundreds of Baha'i women and young girls, and the confescation of >tens of thousands of Baha'i properties and rights. > > The REAL reason why Baha'is are persecuted is because the religious leaders >of Iran fear the Baha'is will steal their flocks (followers). They oppose the >Faith the same as the Jewish Ulemas opposed Jesus and the early Christians. >History truly repeats itself. Darrick Evenson > > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:31 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129120707.08734.00002023@ng123.aol.com>... >> >>I would think it should start immediately on Monday >>if possible. The poll only lasts for two weeks. Many >>students at universities will begin to concentrate >>on exams and finishing up for the semester, so we >>shouldn't wait too long.... I'm hoping the interest poll can begin immediately and not have to wait until January 1999. I've emailed Bill Aten this morning and am waiting to hear back from him. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:35 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: copy of petition to steve case aol Subj: NEW Forum Leader for Bahai Forum Date: 11/19/1998 To: Steve Case Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As a member of AOL, who pays $21.95 a month, I'm concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As a member of the Bahai Faith, I have witnessed censorship practiced in many forums on and off the Internet. I presently am helping to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. My web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm I ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views. The person proposed below by some has repeatedly refused to seriously consider the concerns I and others raise below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ------- Posted to Bahai Forum, Message Boards, For Non-Bahais: I and another person, Ruletherod, have expressed an interest in seeing a folder created for "Bahai Censorship," a real and apparently lasting problem for Bahais and the Bahai administration. Susan Maneck has ignored my message below and others relating to this request or she has brushed them aside, changing the subject, using the Bahai Technique so commonly used.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm I submit she is unfit to serve the best intersts of all paying subscribers to AOL. As a person unable to play fairly and apparently allow a variety of viewpoints, she should not be the replacement for Mark Foster, who, incidentally, if he has any sense of duty and obligation, should immediately resign as Forum Leader since he has abandoned the job for at least several months now and maybe longer. I shall be forwarding this post to AOL and request that others who agree consider contacting AOL as well. Subject: Re: folders Susan Maneck as Forum Leader? Date: 11/16/1998 7:56 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981116075607.00701.00000244@ng74.aol.com> >Dear Sunni, > >We are trying to obtain the proper tools to redesign these folders as I >speak. A number of friends have asked me to take responsibility for this, so >hopefully this situation will not continue much longer. I d anticipate >eliminating any active folders, however, although the number of folders >dealing with homosexuality, Christiian/Baha'i dialogue will probably be >reduced to one each. > >warmest, Susan You say "we." Who has appointed you, Susan? I doubt very much you will handle the job of "Forum Leader" in a fair and impartial manner. The same manipulative censorship and distortion that have manifested themselves on every other "Bahai" newsgroup or mailing list will surely be the result. You can prove your fairness by implementing the following changes on AOL which I have been advocating since mid-August 1998 under Keyword search Bahai: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries finally functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:35 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: copy of petition to steve case aol Subj: NEW Forum Leader for Bahai Forum Date: 11/19/1998 To: Steve Case Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As a member of AOL, who pays $21.95 a month, I'm concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As a member of the Bahai Faith, I have witnessed censorship practiced in many forums on and off the Internet. I presently am helping to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. My web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm I ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views. The person proposed below by some has repeatedly refused to seriously consider the concerns I and others raise below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ------- Posted to Bahai Forum, Message Boards, For Non-Bahais: I and another person, Ruletherod, have expressed an interest in seeing a folder created for "Bahai Censorship," a real and apparently lasting problem for Bahais and the Bahai administration. Susan Maneck has ignored my message below and others relating to this request or she has brushed them aside, changing the subject, using the Bahai Technique so commonly used.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm I submit she is unfit to serve the best intersts of all paying subscribers to AOL. As a person unable to play fairly and apparently allow a variety of viewpoints, she should not be the replacement for Mark Foster, who, incidentally, if he has any sense of duty and obligation, should immediately resign as Forum Leader since he has abandoned the job for at least several months now and maybe longer. I shall be forwarding this post to AOL and request that others who agree consider contacting AOL as well. Subject: Re: folders Susan Maneck as Forum Leader? Date: 11/16/1998 7:56 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981116075607.00701.00000244@ng74.aol.com> >Dear Sunni, > >We are trying to obtain the proper tools to redesign these folders as I >speak. A number of friends have asked me to take responsibility for this, so >hopefully this situation will not continue much longer. I d anticipate >eliminating any active folders, however, although the number of folders >dealing with homosexuality, Christiian/Baha'i dialogue will probably be >reduced to one each. > >warmest, Susan You say "we." Who has appointed you, Susan? I doubt very much you will handle the job of "Forum Leader" in a fair and impartial manner. The same manipulative censorship and distortion that have manifested themselves on every other "Bahai" newsgroup or mailing list will surely be the result. You can prove your fairness by implementing the following changes on AOL which I have been advocating since mid-August 1998 under Keyword search Bahai: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries finally functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 6:15 AM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais All right. But I felt that if I responded to his messages about censorship on soc.religion.bahai ONLY on alt.religion.bahai someone would have accused me of discussing something related to the proposal without crossposting it here on news.groups. It seems to me this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm D E Siegel wrote in message <19981130202735.21082.00000533@ng-fi1.aol.com>... >>From: FG >>Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups >>Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 10:13 AM >>Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and >>Routinely Censures non-Bahais >> >> > >Fred, > >Please cease posting these msgs to news.groups. They are not relevant to the >t.r.b proposal, nor are they on-topic to news.groups. All they do is portray >you as a person with a feud with the s.r.b moderators, and make NO votes on >t.r.b more likely. > >Leave this debate on a.r.b, or move it to t.r.b when and if it is created, if >you like. If you want to complain about moderator censorship, try >news.admin.abuse.usenet if you must. > > > > > > -David E. Siegel > Siegel@ACM.ORG ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 12:22 AM To: FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote Howdy, I have agree to run this vote. If anyone has any objections to me as a votetaker please let me know. Due to the contentiousness of this proposal I am going to include in the CFV a note stating that I am reserving the right to take more than the standard five days to tabulate and post results. Due to the timing of this we will probably run into the Christmas break - I do not believe this will be a problem if I can get my preparations made and the CFV posted in the next few days. I do not think that the voting will be affected much by the break. If you feel strongly that we should postpone until after the new year let me know. Now for my standard blurb: If you have *any* questions please ask me. I live by email and rarely take more than a few hours to reply to urgent email. I will do my best to advise you so that the vote runs smoothly and with a minimum of controversy. In a vote with multiple proponents I'd prefer it if you could pick a lead proponent who can speak for all of you. If this is a problem for you let me know. I ask this since it can streamline interactions between us - which in the past has saved a vote from being tossed. If you have *any* questions, please ask me. I love getting email. Especially from proponents. One thing I won't do is answer questions on the votes themselves. I will not divulge any statistics until after the vote is closed and I have proven to myself that the vote count is as good as I can get it. And lastly, if you have *any* questions, please ask me. (sense a theme?) I am now making up the CFV, as soon as I get an okay from you I will get it posted. thanks, dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais Guy, As I've said, I was trying to follow what's in the RFD and avoid accusations of my failing to observe the rules: All follow-up discussion should be cross-posted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:24 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave, Thanks for taking on the talk.religion.bahai interest poll. I know you're a very seasoned and experienced votetaker and I'm sure we all have the highest trust and confidence in your abilities and thank you for volunteering. We all hope its stormy history is in the past and have been working to create a neutral, technical RFD that all points of view can support this time. I volunteer to be your contact person since I've been involved with trb for two years now and am the only person presently a proponent who is familiar with all that has transpired. By all means, let's not postpone, if you can start within the next day or two! Let's begin right away, as soon as you can. I'm sure we're all in agreement on that! Thanks again.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 4:21 PM Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote >Howdy, > >I have agree to run this vote. If anyone has any objections to me as >a votetaker please let me know. > >Due to the contentiousness of this proposal I am going to include in >the CFV a note stating that I am reserving the right to take more than >the standard five days to tabulate and post results. > >Due to the timing of this we will probably run into the Christmas >break - I do not believe this will be a problem if I can get my >preparations made and the CFV posted in the next few days. I do not >think that the voting will be affected much by the break. If you feel >strongly that we should postpone until after the new year let me know. > >Now for my standard blurb: > >If you have *any* questions please ask me. I live by email and rarely >take more than a few hours to reply to urgent email. I will do my >best to advise you so that the vote runs smoothly and with a minimum >of controversy. > >In a vote with multiple proponents I'd prefer it if you could pick a >lead proponent who can speak for all of you. If this is a problem for >you let me know. I ask this since it can streamline interactions >between us - which in the past has saved a vote from being tossed. > >If you have *any* questions, please ask me. I love getting email. >Especially from proponents. > >One thing I won't do is answer questions on the votes themselves. I >will not divulge any statistics until after the vote is closed and I >have proven to myself that the vote count is as good as I can get it. > >And lastly, if you have *any* questions, please ask me. (sense a >theme?) > >I am now making up the CFV, as soon as I get an okay from you I will >get it posted. > >thanks, >dave > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:57 AM To: talisman Subject: talk.religion.bahai - interest poll about to begin Dave Cornejo has volunteered as the votetaker for the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. It should begin within a day or two on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:58 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai - interest poll about to begin Dave Cornejo has volunteered as the votetaker for the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. It should begin within a day or two on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 4:16 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: censorship <> Subj: censorship Date: 12/3/1998 11:52:58 AM Eastern Standard Time From: stomljen@enteract.com (Steve Tomljenovic) To: FG@aol.com Here is a something I've written recently in the thread "Re: Effective Prospecting" dated Dec 1, 1998. You might want to add it to your list of quotes.. I've had posts censored in the past as well. The moderators are a bit overzealous at times. Since all the controversy started, it has gotten worse. I think they are a bit defensive at the moment. There is a concept in Baha'i thought that the Faith is like a sapling that needs to be protected until it can stand on it's own. Part of this "protection" is a degree of censorship. However, I don't think this is being handled very wisely in some respects. The Baha'i [soc.religion.bahai] moderators forget, I believe, how sensitive folks are on the Internet to these kinds of things. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc05.mail.aol.com (v53.17) with SMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:52:58 -0500 Received: from smtp.enteract.com (thor.enteract.com [207.229.143.11]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with SMTP id LAA11240 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3579 invoked from network); 3 Dec 1998 16:52:27 -0000 Received: from adam.enteract.com (stomljen@206.54.252.1) by thor.enteract.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 1998 16:52:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:52:27 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Tomljenovic To: FG@aol.com Subject: censorship Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais D E Siegel wrote in message <19981203094949.10246.00000109@ng-bw1.aol.com>... >BUT, disscussion of alleged mis-moderation or abuse on s.r.b are not (properly) >part of the followup discussion to the t.r.b RFD, at least IMO. Sorry. If somebody accuses me of not crossposting discussion, please remember my attempt to do so.... It's hard to judge what is and isn't necessary sometimes. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 4:43 PM To: Dave Cornejo; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Sending copies to everyone is fine with me too. We've been doing this for months now. I've posted a message to the effect on alt.religion.bahai and news.groups that it looks like the poll is going to begin soon after all. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Frank Baker To: Dave Cornejo ; FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 3:15 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >Thanks, Dave! > >We all look forward to getting the actual voting underway. >I am also in favor of going forward now rather than waiting >until after the first of the year. > >I can also accept Frederick as your point of contact. I just >ask that both of you copy the rest of the proponents on such >correspondence. Thanks. > >Regards, >-- Frank > >At 09:22 PM 12/2/98 -0800, Dave Cornejo wrote: >>Howdy, >> >>I have agree to run this vote. If anyone has any objections to me as >>a votetaker please let me know. >> >>Due to the contentiousness of this proposal I am going to include in >>the CFV a note stating that I am reserving the right to take more than >>the standard five days to tabulate and post results. >> >>Due to the timing of this we will probably run into the Christmas >>break - I do not believe this will be a problem if I can get my >>preparations made and the CFV posted in the next few days. I do not >>think that the voting will be affected much by the break. If you feel >>strongly that we should postpone until after the new year let me know. >> >>Now for my standard blurb: >> >>If you have *any* questions please ask me. I live by email and rarely >>take more than a few hours to reply to urgent email. I will do my >>best to advise you so that the vote runs smoothly and with a minimum >>of controversy. >> >>In a vote with multiple proponents I'd prefer it if you could pick a >>lead proponent who can speak for all of you. If this is a problem for >>you let me know. I ask this since it can streamline interactions >>between us - which in the past has saved a vote from being tossed. >> >>If you have *any* questions, please ask me. I love getting email. >>Especially from proponents. >> >>One thing I won't do is answer questions on the votes themselves. I >>will not divulge any statistics until after the vote is closed and I >>have proven to myself that the vote count is as good as I can get it. >> >>And lastly, if you have *any* questions, please ask me. (sense a >>theme?) >> >>I am now making up the CFV, as soon as I get an okay from you I will >>get it posted. >> >>thanks, >>dave >> >>-- >>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >>General Magician & Registered Be Developer >> >> ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:02 AM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Someone posting in my name Someone has posted in my name in the Bahai Forum Message Boards under Question to Forum Leader. I've included a copy of it for you. I definitely did not write this message. Is there anyway you can trace it and find who did this and how? Frederick Glaysher ------------- Subject: Re: Mark Foster's email address? From: FgIaysher Message-id: <19981203211554.24205.00001683@ng116.aol.com> Susan, Look how much attention I get because I am so perfect and all of you are so questionable. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm baha'i ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 11:45 PM To: cjohnwalker@ozemail.com.au; dave@dogwood.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Onward! --Fran ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 11:45 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: cjohnwalker@ozemail.com.au; dave@dogwood.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Fran Baker wrote: > Onward! I submitted the CFV about 5 minutes ago. Good luck to you. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:44 AM To: owner@sociologist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: AOL Forum Leader Dear Mr. Foster: I and others on AOL would appreciate your resigning from your position so that something may begin to improve. We have been discussing periodically since at least August your disapperance and now ask you to step down. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ------------- Rough Draft to Steve Case: Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As members of AOL, who pay $21.95 a month, we're concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As members, former members, or non-members of the Bahai Faith, we have witnessed censorship practiced by Bahais in many forums on and off the Internet. We presently are attempting to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. Frederick Glaysher's web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm We ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who will be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views or perhaps appoint two or three people to counterbalance one another with veto power so that at least some kind of system of checks and balances might exists to protect people from the tyranny of past Bahai Forum Leaders. At the very least, we feel the resolution must allow the following changes under the Bahai Forums which some members have been advocating since the middle of August 1998: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. We know that the Bahai AOL Forums have had a stormy history. We hope that you will help us find a lasting solution to these profound problems of religious freedom and conscience. At the moment, we believe the "frozen" nature of the Bahai Forums very much plays into the hands of those opposed to freedom of speech and hope a compromise can be reached allowing for a new atmosphere of openness and toleration on AOL's Bahai Forums. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:29 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Errors in RFD talk.religiion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > The UVV must have given you the old version of the RFD. > Two passages should have been deleted. David Lawrence > had okayed their removal without reposting; they're spelled > out on my web site at > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm This is a new twist to the procedure I've never seen before. I have email to tale asking his opinion, but if you're agreed we'll probably just let it slide. I usually consider the PQ to be authoritative especially as it shouldn't be submitted until after all the discussion is done. dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:56 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Errors in RFD talk.religiion.bahai Dave, The UVV must have given you the old version of the RFD. Two passages should have been deleted. David Lawrence had okayed their removal without reposting; they're spelled out on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Three changes were made in the RFD after an initial Questionnaire was submitted to the UVV: 1. A new proponent added: John Walker 2. Deleted from the RFD: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." 3. Deleted from the RFD: "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 replaced with: "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." Since both passages, 2 and 3, are in the RFD you're posting, countering balancing each other as I see it, I don't mind proceding with the poll as it is. If any of the other proponents oppose going forward, please speak up immediately. It's a trivial point to me.... If anyone does object, Dave could just make the necessary changes and repost it today if possible or post a note saying Pointer #2 will reflect the corrections. That might be a better way of handling this minor complication. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk .religion.misc Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:59 AM Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >Newsgroups line: >talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. > >Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Dec 1998. > >This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions >about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent. > >Proponent: Frederick Glaysher >Proponent: Ron House >Proponent: Fran Baker >Proponent: Frank Baker >Proponent: John Walker >Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > >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. > >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. > >HOW TO VOTE: > >Follow these instructions *exactly*! Votes are counted by computer. >You should send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to: > > vote@dogwood.com > >Please do not assume that just replying to this message will work. >Check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail message >should contain one and only one of the following vote statements: > > I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai > I vote NO on talk.religion.bahai > > Voter name: > >If your mail software does not indicate your real name (for example, >AOL does not), include _exactly_ the statement above on a _separate_ >line and add your name after the colon. Having your name in your >signature line is NOT enough! Do NOT join the lines together or >remove the words "Voter name"! > >You may also vote ABSTAIN (which records an empty vote) or CANCEL >(which removes any earlier votes). ABSTAIN does not affect the final >vote count in any way but is listed, whereas CANCEL is not. > >IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: > >Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One vote per person, one >account per voter. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to >the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid. >Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous >votes. Votes from non-existent email addresses are not valid. > >Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may >mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an >acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker >about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is >registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the >most recent valid vote. Addresses, names and votes of all voters will >be published in the final voting results post. > >The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of >persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from >disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute >this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to >news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited >copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud. When in >doubt, ask the votetaker. > > ***** > >SPECIAL NOTE: DUE TO THE CHRISTMAS BREAK AND OTHER FACTORS THE RESULTS >FOR THIS GROUP ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER THAN NORMAL TO BE POSTED. > > ***** > >DISTRIBUTION: > >In addition to the groups named in the Newsgroups: header, the CFV >and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing lists: > >Mailing list name: Talisman >Submission address: talisman@umich.edu >Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu > >Mailing list name: Bahai Studies >Submission address: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us >Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > >Mailing list name: h-Bahai >Submission address: h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu >Request address: jrcole@umich.edu > >Mailing list name: bahai-faith >Submission address: bahai-faith@egroups.com >Request address: bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com > >Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups: > >alt.religion >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 >talk.philosophy.humanism >talk.philosophy.misc >uk.religion.interfaith >uk.religion.misc >uk.religion.other-faiths > >-- >Voting question & problems: Dave Cornejo >Voting address: vote@dogwood.com ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I just found Tale's message to me about the changes > in case it helps you figure out what to do. Hope I didn't > misunderstand something. Well, it gives me tales opinion - the consensus right now is to let it ride but I haven't heard the final word from group-advice either. dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:07 AM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Email Copy of CFV? Dave, The CFV doesn't state clearly whether people can get a copy of the ballot directly from you by email. Can they? One account per voter? What about AOL accounts, for instance, where a husband and wife may have separate email addresses? What's this mean? I myself have a hotmail.com account that I access from the www all the time: "Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous votes." Have the pointers gone out? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: AOL TOSGeneral - false post using my name on Bahai Forums -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 11:03 PM Subject: Someone posting in my name >Someone has posted in my name in the Bahai Forum Message Boards >under Question to Forum Leader. I've included a copy of it for you. I >definitely did not write this message. Is there anyway you can trace >it and find who did this and how? > >Frederick Glaysher > > >------------- >Subject: Re: Mark Foster's email address? >From: FgIaysher >Message-id: <19981203211554.24205.00001683@ng116.aol.com> > >Susan, >Look how much attention I get because I am so perfect and all of you are so >questionable. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >baha'i > > > > > ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:18 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: (no subject) Dear TOSGeneral: Someone else on the Bahai Message Board For non-Bahais has pointed out to me that a second message was falsely posted in my name by a Bahai last night. I have only this quotation to help you try and trace it: >You should all recognize by now that I am the epitome of perfection >>compared to your own feeble minded selves Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Email Copy of CFV? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Okay, I got it. I don't blame ya. Someone warned us on > news.groups, though, that dejanews puts in some sort of > code that messes up automatic counting. Have you heard > that or is not the case? It can for certain votetakers, I am immune to it if the directions in the CFV are followed. > > > > >> One account per voter? What about AOL accounts, for > >> instance, where a husband and wife may have separate > >> email addresses? > > > >Well a husband and wife are two people, so they each may vote from > >their own accounts. > > My wife and I and my two sons share an AOL account with > different names and email addresses for the one account. > Anyone on AOL can do this up to 4 or 5 email addresses. > Strictly speaking, it's only one account; I pay the bill! I'm > assuming under such cases it's okay for each separate > member to cast a vote, right? Well for our purposes, an account is the same as an email address. > >> What's this mean? I myself have a hotmail.com account > >> that I access from the www all the time: > >> "Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous > >> votes." > > > >It's bolierplate that allows me to disqualify votes from people who > >get suckered into voting - It has happened in the past that someone > >had a web page that did not mention a newsgroup vote but claimed to be > >taking a general interest poll. The form then made up a valid vote > >for the person using their email address - and these people never knew > >that they voted until they got a receipt from the votetaker. > > Haven't heard that one before! People are incredible.... > > >With regards to hotmail and like services - I generally accept them. > >But in my acceptance of a vote I have a scoring system for each vote. > >Every vote starts out as acceptable, some factors subtract from its > >acceptability and if it drops below a certain score I toss it. A vote > >coming from hotmail automatically gets a lot subtracted from its > >score. > > What's wrong with Hotmail? I've been using it for two years > with no trouble. It's actually gotten better since Microsoft > gobbled them up. The fact that they are untraceable (by us) accounts and that anyone could have one. It has nothing to do with the service or who owns them just that it's very easy to abuse the vote process with email from there. The thinking has been that if you have access to hotmail you have to have an account of some kind to get on the net and that that account should have email and that you should vote from that address. Or, why would someone want to vote from hotmail when they have a perfectly valid email address? There are votetakers that would or have rejected hotmail out of hand - In fact I think there was a version of the software that had that coded into it. I just recompiled mine I should check to see if I accept them... > >> Have the pointers gone out? > > > >Well I don't send out pointers, you do. I send out the CFV to the > >mailing lists. I never send out to the mailing lists until I receive > >a posted copy of the CFV. (Tale fills in some blanks when he posts it > >so I don't have a definitive copy until I see the posting myself). > > Glad you mention it. I'll post Pointers right away. Let me know if > you object to the following copy: > > The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. > The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. > You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. > The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, > or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting > the trb CFV ballot. > > (Sorry about mentioning email. At least I've put it at the end.) > > I'm assuming now you either have already done the mailing > lists or will do so as soon as you can. The mailing lists will probably go out tonight - I am somewhat handicapped by a slow newsfeed and a very busy schedule. I hadn't actually finished setup here but submitted the CFV expecting I'd have a few days before they got posted - imagine my surprise to wake up this morning to find a notice that they had been posted. So I'm scrambling to catch up... sorry! > Thanks, again, for all your help, Dave, in getting this set > up and rolling. I know there's got to be a lot of work involved > that we out here don't see.... you're welcome - btw, could you please forward these emails to your co-proponents and CC them on future things? I am mobile right now and don't have access to all your emails addresses... dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:30 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com; SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 3rd fraudelent message using my name and address A third message has turned up under the folder Homosexuality on the Bahai Forums Message Boards. I'm now very distressed by this. Bahais are obviously attempting to create trouble for the Usenet proposal for an unmoderated newsgroup talk.religion.bahai. It was just posted yesterday on news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Is there anything you can do to stop this person from impersonating me? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Subject: Re: Confession & Repentance Date: 12/3/1998 9:20 PM Eastern Standard Time From: FgIaysher Message-id: <19981203212026.25667.00001644@ng115.aol.com> Definitly a collection of freaks here. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai Dave, The UVV must have given you the old version of the RFD. Two passages should have been deleted. David Lawrence had okayed their removal without reposting; they're spelled out on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Three changes were made in the RFD after an initial Questionnaire was submitted to the UVV: 1. A new proponent added: John Walker 2. Deleted from the RFD: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." 3. Deleted from the RFD: "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 replaced with: "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." Since both passages, 2 and 3, are in the RFD you're posting, countering balancing each other as I see it, I don't mind proceding with the poll as it is. If any of the other proponents oppose going forward, please speak up immediately. It's a trivial point to me.... If anyone does object, Dave could just make the necessary changes and repost it today if possible or post a note saying Pointer #2 will reflect the corrections. That might be a better way of handling this minor complication. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:36 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Rough Draft To Steve Case re Bahai Forums Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As members of AOL, who pay $21.95 a month, we're concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As members, former members, or non-members of the Bahai Faith, we have witnessed censorship practiced by Bahais in many forums on and off the Internet. We presently are attempting to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. Frederick Glaysher's web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm We ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who will be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views or perhaps appoint two or three people to counterbalance one another with veto power so that at least some kind of system of checks and balances might exists to protect people from the tyranny of past Bahai Forum Leaders. At the very least, we feel the resolution must allow the following changes under the Bahai Forums which some members have been advocating since the middle of August 1998: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. We know that the Bahai AOL Forums have had a stormy history. We hope that you will help us find a lasting solution to these profound problems of religious freedom and conscience. At the moment, we believe the "frozen" nature of the Bahai Forums very much plays into the hands of those opposed to freedom of speech and hope a compromise can be reached allowing for a new atmosphere of openness and toleration on AOL's Bahai Forums. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:36 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Rough Draft To Steve Case re Bahai Forums Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As members of AOL, who pay $21.95 a month, we're concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As members, former members, or non-members of the Bahai Faith, we have witnessed censorship practiced by Bahais in many forums on and off the Internet. We presently are attempting to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. Frederick Glaysher's web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm We ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who will be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views or perhaps appoint two or three people to counterbalance one another with veto power so that at least some kind of system of checks and balances might exists to protect people from the tyranny of past Bahai Forum Leaders. At the very least, we feel the resolution must allow the following changes under the Bahai Forums which some members have been advocating since the middle of August 1998: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. We know that the Bahai AOL Forums have had a stormy history. We hope that you will help us find a lasting solution to these profound problems of religious freedom and conscience. At the moment, we believe the "frozen" nature of the Bahai Forums very much plays into the hands of those opposed to freedom of speech and hope a compromise can be reached allowing for a new atmosphere of openness and toleration on AOL's Bahai Forums. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:48 AM To: talisman Subject: AOL Bahai Forums - Steve Case, Mark Foster Dear Mr. Foster: I and others on AOL would appreciate your resigning from your position [as Forum Leader] so that something may begin to improve. We have been discussing periodically since at least August your disapperance and now ask you to step down. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ------------- Rough Draft to Steve Case: Dear Mr. Case, There are serious and long standing problems with the way the Bahai Forums are run. As members of AOL, who pay $21.95 a month, we're concerned that AOL is permitting unknowingly a very high level of censorship and manipulation to take place by essentially religious zealots who will not permit others to speak their minds. As members, former members, or non-members of the Bahai Faith, we have witnessed censorship practiced by Bahais in many forums on and off the Internet. We presently are attempting to create an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai on Usenet. Frederick Glaysher's web site documents numerous abuses by Bahais of the human rights of members and non-Bahais: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm We ask you to investigate the situation on the AOL Forums and appoint someone as Forum Leader who will be a fair and objective person allowing all opinions to find expression and not abuse their duties in favor of fanatical views or perhaps appoint two or three people to counterbalance one another with veto power so that at least some kind of system of checks and balances might exists to protect people from the tyranny of past Bahai Forum Leaders. At the very least, we feel the resolution must allow the following changes under the Bahai Forums which some members have been advocating since the middle of August 1998: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. We know that the Bahai AOL Forums have had a stormy history. We hope that you will help us find a lasting solution to these profound problems of religious freedom and conscience. At the moment, we believe the "frozen" nature of the Bahai Forums very much plays into the hands of those opposed to freedom of speech and hope a compromise can be reached allowing for a new atmosphere of openness and toleration on AOL's Bahai Forums. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:46 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com Subject: Re: Email Copy of CFV? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > The CFV doesn't state clearly whether people can get > a copy of the ballot directly from you by email. Can > they? Yes, this is a given in the process. I would put it in the CFV except that if they see it there, then they already have a copy... I *really* like to discourage people emailing me directly for a CFV - there are many other source (like DejeNews) where you can give people pointers to. If the quantity of requests gets too high they back up here. > One account per voter? What about AOL accounts, for > instance, where a husband and wife may have separate > email addresses? Well a husband and wife are two people, so they each may vote from their own accounts. > What's this mean? I myself have a hotmail.com account > that I access from the www all the time: > "Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous > votes." It's bolierplate that allows me to disqualify votes from people who get suckered into voting - It has happened in the past that someone had a web page that did not mention a newsgroup vote but claimed to be taking a general interest poll. The form then made up a valid vote for the person using their email address - and these people never knew that they voted until they got a receipt from the votetaker. With regards to hotmail and like services - I generally accept them. But in my acceptance of a vote I have a scoring system for each vote. Every vote starts out as acceptable, some factors subtract from its acceptability and if it drops below a certain score I toss it. A vote coming from hotmail automatically gets a lot subtracted from its score. > Have the pointers gone out? Well I don't send out pointers, you do. I send out the CFV to the mailing lists. I never send out to the mailing lists until I receive a posted copy of the CFV. (Tale fills in some blanks when he posts it so I don't have a definitive copy until I see the posting myself). dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:29 PM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Dave, I just found Tale's message to me about the changes in case it helps you figure out what to do. Hope I didn't misunderstand something. -----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 > There was then the one other additional change I listed in my previous message. Everybody on news.groups just agreed on it as counterbalancing the first dropped sentence Lawrence knew about and no big deal. Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:32 PM To: Christian Gruber Subject: Re: get a life Thanks for your kind words of support. There have been so few of them.... I had decided not to respond to this person because it seemed he would have just got nastier! Thanks again. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Christian Gruber Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 11:55 AM Subject: Re: get a life >Peter, please. It is not kind to rub issues like this in peoples faces. >Frederick has a sincere issue and he is adamant about it. That's >fine. There is no need to be nasty because he hasn't worked this >situation out to his satisfaction. > >Sincerely, >Christian. > >peter bird wrote in message <74740k$mvf$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... >>3 months down the line Freddy and you're still harping on about the same >old >>rubbish - I pity you - I've done such a lot in the past 3 months - you have >>wasted precious time >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:38 PM Subject: Re: REPOST - The Bahai Technique Thanks for your observations. As a Bahai myself, I know you're quite right, now all dogs have spots.... I have tried to differentiate that reality by qualifying and endlessly using SOME to the point of boredom. Your question is one that has come up and been answered so many times that it's been added in the "alt.religion.bahai FAQ." Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Christian Gruber wrote in message <7493ch$8c7$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >I would suggest that this kind of inductive politics, that is to say, the >gathering of testimony and aggregating it to set a tone is simply >irrelevant. It is a technique which allows no analysis on the part of the >reader, as the threads or post which incited the quote are absent, and the >reader has no opportunity to be his own judge on whether some egregious >error has been committed. > >Additionally, I'm a little pissed at the "Baha'i Faith" being characterized >en masse, as opposed to an unsanctioned group of Baha'is and others gathered >to discuss who happen to disagree. I agree many Baha'is are standard sort >of people who "circle the wagons" when it seems like their beloved faith is >under attack, but that is human frailty and not a feature of the Baha'i >Faith. There are many of us who do not respond in this way and yet adhere >to and owe allegiance to the Baha'i Faith. Please differentiate. I try to. > >Sincerely, >Christian Gruber > >p.s. I have no opinion on t.r.b but would likely participate. What is the >purpose of t.r.b that a.r.b doesn't provide, btw? > >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981203080852.26540.00001498@ng120.aol.com>... >>During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted >>several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues >>or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own: >> >>Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992: >>"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of >>the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I >>have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. 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 >>life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of >>unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself, >>which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the >>person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire >>control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him >>pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the >>Truth." >> >>Ron House, November 14, 1997: >>"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." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm >> >>Frederick Glaysher, June 1998: >>"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." >> >>Fran Baker, May 1998: >>"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, June 12, 1998: >>"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!" >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm >> >>K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998: >>"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty] >>were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in >>their condemnations of their fellow believers, I >>would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i >>affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the >>preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling >>dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan >>Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've >>"got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some >>awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not >>character assassination by innuendo, what is?" >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson18.htm >> >>Gibro28W, October 12, 1998: >>"In summary, the biggest problem, as I see it, >>is that most Baha'is don't take criticism seriously--they tune it out as >>"negative" or "harmful to spiritual growth." This selfish >>attitude is very stupid. First of all, Baha'is entice people to join them. >>When they do, they indoctrinate them until they think like the group. But >as >>soon as a red flare of doubt goes up in the convert's mind, they're >cordoned >>off by the group and reminded of their "spiritual" obligations in the name >>of Baha'u'llah or the "Covenant." If left unresolved and doubt gives vent >to >>prolonged criticism, the convert is sent packing or is kicked out. What >>we have here is a broken family that had failed to truly listen to the >needs >>of its members in the first place." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb73.htm >> >>Barthaman on September 14, 1998: >>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. >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb66.htm >> >>Cf. K. Paul Johnson's general reflections on coercive techniques >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson21.htm >> >>And LaAeterna's method of silencing opponents >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb65.htm >> >>This document at >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technieque.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:44 PM Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations Christian Gruber wrote in message <7492si$304$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >Frederik et al. > >I'm just wondering if this isn't the sort of personal politicking which >Shoghi Effendi warned us about. It just seems a bit mean-spirited and >vindictive. Mind you I haven't seen the context of these statements, but I >find the collection thereof, in fact any collection of short sound-bite >criticisms or single-point-of-view quotes, suspicious on these grounds. All you have to do is click on the link to get the entire message; I too wanted to be sure to preserve the context. If you'd like even more context, go to www.dejanew.com for the relevant time period or the Archive on my web site. > >Remember, Baha'u'llah wasn't about vendettas and axe grinding, even if the >moderators _are_ acting in such a way. Well, what alternative is there? I've emailed the Universal House of Justice over 30 times, that's THIRTY times, during the last year. They apparently don't care about the manner in which soc.religion.bahai censors people.... > >Additionally I have (in earlier net incarnations) known some (and almost >applied to be one ) of the moderators and I really find these comments >surprising. I've never known a writer of an article to be happy with an >editor, however, and the cry of censorship is almost instantaneous upon >rejection. I've felt the "crushing blow" of rejection of two posts from >s.r.b, but I never felt that anything from the moderators was nasty. Nice censors? Others have said they feel differently: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > >Sincerely, >Christian Gruber > >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981203080622.26540.00001497@ng120.aol.com>... >>Kent Johnson: >>"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group >>while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously >>unjust." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm >> >>Ron House: >>"I think the following is a clear case of malicious >>rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of >>soc.religion.bahai." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm >> >>Timothy Mulligan: >>"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those >>SRB moderators." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm >> >>RobertNik: >>"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm >> >>Bruce Burrill: >>"What are Baha'i afraid of?" >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm >> >>Zuteflute: >>"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which >>would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm >> >>YU ZIR: >>"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher >>is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to >>address." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm >> >>Matthew Cromer: >>"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles >>which they agree with...." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm >> >>Melissa Boyer Kafes: >>"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai >>and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm >> >>Harold Shinsato: >>"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm >> >>Laeterna: >>"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was >>putting it mildly indeed." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm >> >>Guy Macon" >>"Please explain which portion of the charter the following >>post violates." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm >> >>Robin Peters: >>"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the >>face of consistent censorship." >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm >> >>jgoldberg: >>"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and >>mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. " >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm >> >>Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under >>soc.religion.bahai censorship. >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://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: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:59 PM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Re: Email Copy of CFV? -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:46 AM Subject: Re: Email Copy of CFV? >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> The CFV doesn't state clearly whether people can get >> a copy of the ballot directly from you by email. Can >> they? > >Yes, this is a given in the process. I would put it in the CFV except >that if they see it there, then they already have a copy... I >*really* like to discourage people emailing me directly for a CFV - >there are many other source (like DejeNews) where you can give people >pointers to. If the quantity of requests gets too high they back up >here. Okay, I got it. I don't blame ya. Someone warned us on news.groups, though, that dejanews puts in some sort of code that messes up automatic counting. Have you heard that or is not the case? > >> One account per voter? What about AOL accounts, for >> instance, where a husband and wife may have separate >> email addresses? > >Well a husband and wife are two people, so they each may vote from >their own accounts. My wife and I and my two sons share an AOL account with different names and email addresses for the one account. Anyone on AOL can do this up to 4 or 5 email addresses. Strictly speaking, it's only one account; I pay the bill! I'm assuming under such cases it's okay for each separate member to cast a vote, right? > >> What's this mean? I myself have a hotmail.com account >> that I access from the www all the time: >> "Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous >> votes." > >It's bolierplate that allows me to disqualify votes from people who >get suckered into voting - It has happened in the past that someone >had a web page that did not mention a newsgroup vote but claimed to be >taking a general interest poll. The form then made up a valid vote >for the person using their email address - and these people never knew >that they voted until they got a receipt from the votetaker. Haven't heard that one before! People are incredible.... >With regards to hotmail and like services - I generally accept them. >But in my acceptance of a vote I have a scoring system for each vote. >Every vote starts out as acceptable, some factors subtract from its >acceptability and if it drops below a certain score I toss it. A vote >coming from hotmail automatically gets a lot subtracted from its >score. What's wrong with Hotmail? I've been using it for two years with no trouble. It's actually gotten better since Microsoft gobbled them up. > >> Have the pointers gone out? > >Well I don't send out pointers, you do. I send out the CFV to the >mailing lists. I never send out to the mailing lists until I receive >a posted copy of the CFV. (Tale fills in some blanks when he posts it >so I don't have a definitive copy until I see the posting myself). Glad you mention it. I'll post Pointers right away. Let me know if you object to the following copy: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. (Sorry about mentioning email. At least I've put it at the end.) I'm assuming now you either have already done the mailing lists or will do so as soon as you can. Thanks, again, for all your help, Dave, in getting this set up and rolling. I know there's got to be a lot of work involved that we out here don't see.... Fred > >dave > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:09 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Pointers list of Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups: alt.religion 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 talk.philosophy.humanism talk.philosophy.misc uk.religion.interfaith uk.religion.misc uk.religion.other-faiths ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:48 PM Subject: Interest Poll begins - talk.religion.bahai - pointer The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: uu-approve@iecc.com[SMTP:uu-approve@iecc.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:49 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Interest Poll begins - talk.religion.bahai - pointer Your message to soc.religion.unitarian-univ has been received and has been posted to the newsgroup. Regards, The soc.religion.unitarian-univ reception robot ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:54 PM Subject: Pointer TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI Interest Poll The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:59 PM Subject: POINTER talk.religion.bahai interest poll begins The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:33 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai I would think the other proponents will agree not to worry unduly about the slight confusion. Perhaps the change can be smoothly made with the second posting of the CFV? I would think it's best for news.groups and everyone involved to just keep it going now. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:06 AM Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> I just found Tale's message to me about the changes >> in case it helps you figure out what to do. Hope I didn't >> misunderstand something. > >Well, it gives me tales opinion - the consensus right now is to let it >ride but I haven't heard the final word from group-advice either. > >dave > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:33 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com; SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 3rd fraudelent message using my name and address A third message has turned up under the folder Homosexuality on the Bahai Forums Message Boards. I'm now very distressed by this. Bahais are obviously attempting to create trouble for the Usenet proposal for an unmoderated newsgroup talk.religion.bahai. It was just posted yesterday on news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Is there anything you can do to stop this person from impersonating me? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Subject: Re: Confession & Repentance Date: 12/3/1998 9:20 PM Eastern Standard Time From: FgIaysher Message-id: <19981203212026.25667.00001644@ng115.aol.com> Definitly a collection of freaks here. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:48 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] AOL Baha Forums - 3rd TOS surfaces <> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:48 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: AOL Baha Forums - 3rd TOS surfaces -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: TOSGeneral@aol.com ; SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:34 AM Subject: 3rd fraudelent message using my name and address >A third message has turned up under the folder Homosexuality on the Bahai >Forums Message Boards. I'm now very distressed by this. Bahais are obviously >attempting to create trouble for the Usenet proposal for an unmoderated >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai. It was just posted yesterday on >news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. > >Is there anything you can do to stop this person from impersonating me? > > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > >Subject: Re: Confession & Repentance >Date: 12/3/1998 9:20 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: FgIaysher >Message-id: <19981203212026.25667.00001644@ng115.aol.com> > >Definitly a collection of freaks here. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >baha'i > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:48 PM Subject: AOL Baha Forums - 3rd TOS surfaces -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: TOSGeneral@aol.com ; SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:34 AM Subject: 3rd fraudelent message using my name and address >A third message has turned up under the folder Homosexuality on the Bahai >Forums Message Boards. I'm now very distressed by this. Bahais are obviously >attempting to create trouble for the Usenet proposal for an unmoderated >newsgroup talk.religion.bahai. It was just posted yesterday on >news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. > >Is there anything you can do to stop this person from impersonating me? > > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > >Subject: Re: Confession & Repentance >Date: 12/3/1998 9:20 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: FgIaysher >Message-id: <19981203212026.25667.00001644@ng115.aol.com> > >Definitly a collection of freaks here. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > >baha'i > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:53 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Email Copy of CFV? fyi -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Email Copy of CFV? >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Okay, I got it. I don't blame ya. Someone warned us on >> news.groups, though, that dejanews puts in some sort of >> code that messes up automatic counting. Have you heard >> that or is not the case? > >It can for certain votetakers, I am immune to it if the directions in >the CFV are followed. > >> >> > >> >> One account per voter? What about AOL accounts, for >> >> instance, where a husband and wife may have separate >> >> email addresses? >> > >> >Well a husband and wife are two people, so they each may vote from >> >their own accounts. >> >> My wife and I and my two sons share an AOL account with >> different names and email addresses for the one account. >> Anyone on AOL can do this up to 4 or 5 email addresses. >> Strictly speaking, it's only one account; I pay the bill! I'm >> assuming under such cases it's okay for each separate >> member to cast a vote, right? > >Well for our purposes, an account is the same as an email address. > >> >> What's this mean? I myself have a hotmail.com account >> >> that I access from the www all the time: >> >> "Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous >> >> votes." >> > >> >It's bolierplate that allows me to disqualify votes from people who >> >get suckered into voting - It has happened in the past that someone >> >had a web page that did not mention a newsgroup vote but claimed to be >> >taking a general interest poll. The form then made up a valid vote >> >for the person using their email address - and these people never knew >> >that they voted until they got a receipt from the votetaker. >> >> Haven't heard that one before! People are incredible.... >> >> >With regards to hotmail and like services - I generally accept them. >> >But in my acceptance of a vote I have a scoring system for each vote. >> >Every vote starts out as acceptable, some factors subtract from its >> >acceptability and if it drops below a certain score I toss it. A vote >> >coming from hotmail automatically gets a lot subtracted from its >> >score. >> >> What's wrong with Hotmail? I've been using it for two years >> with no trouble. It's actually gotten better since Microsoft >> gobbled them up. > >The fact that they are untraceable (by us) accounts and that anyone >could have one. It has nothing to do with the service or who owns >them just that it's very easy to abuse the vote process with email >from there. The thinking has been that if you have access to hotmail >you have to have an account of some kind to get on the net and that >that account should have email and that you should vote from that >address. Or, why would someone want to vote from hotmail when they >have a perfectly valid email address? There are votetakers that would >or have rejected hotmail out of hand - In fact I think there was a >version of the software that had that coded into it. I just >recompiled mine I should check to see if I accept them... > >> >> Have the pointers gone out? >> > >> >Well I don't send out pointers, you do. I send out the CFV to the >> >mailing lists. I never send out to the mailing lists until I receive >> >a posted copy of the CFV. (Tale fills in some blanks when he posts it >> >so I don't have a definitive copy until I see the posting myself). >> >> Glad you mention it. I'll post Pointers right away. Let me know if >> you object to the following copy: >> >> The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. >> The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. >> You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. >> The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, >> news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and soc.rights.human, >> or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting >> the trb CFV ballot. >> >> (Sorry about mentioning email. At least I've put it at the end.) >> >> I'm assuming now you either have already done the mailing >> lists or will do so as soon as you can. > >The mailing lists will probably go out tonight - I am somewhat >handicapped by a slow newsfeed and a very busy schedule. I hadn't >actually finished setup here but submitted the CFV expecting I'd have >a few days before they got posted - imagine my surprise to wake up >this morning to find a notice that they had been posted. So I'm >scrambling to catch up... sorry! > >> Thanks, again, for all your help, Dave, in getting this set >> up and rolling. I know there's got to be a lot of work involved >> that we out here don't see.... > >you're welcome - btw, could you please forward these emails to your >co-proponents and CC them on future things? I am mobile right now and >don't have access to all your emails addresses... > >dave > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:53 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I would think the other proponents will agree not to > worry unduly about the slight confusion. Perhaps > the change can be smoothly made with the second > posting of the CFV? I would think it's best for > news.groups and everyone involved to just keep it > going now. I have heard from everyone except tale and things will continue unless he feels otherwise. From your email it doesn't look like he will. The second CFV needs to be the same as the first, especially with a vote like this. BTW, the problem was that you did not update the PQ. I don't know where, if anywhere, it says this in the material you had access to, but it is considered to be the proponents responsibility. I don't know if you intend to do this again, but it's something you might want to remember... -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: RobertNik@aol.com[SMTP:RobertNik@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:55 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. Hi what do I do to vote? regards R. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 4:00 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. Greetings, Frederick. Many thanks for letting me know this. Very Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 4:43 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Password Phishing - probable victim I may very well have been the victim of password phishing this afternoon. Last night around 9:30pm someone posted three messages to the Bahai Forums/ Message Boards/Question Forum Leader and to /Homosexuality stealing my identity and pretending to be me including using my regularly signature file. This afternoon someone using the screen name "flybynine" used an Instant Message to contact me and asked me if I had changed my password which I had not yet done. I refused to reveal anything to the person and exited three time but he or she kept contacting me. I have now changed my password. Please advise me what else to do. I'm very upset over this as I mentioned in my previous message. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:10 PM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Sorry. It was my fault. The PQ didn't really ask for the entire new RFD so I just assumed it would be changed since Tale and Bill Aten, I think, too, knew about the changes. I and others would prefer the changes but if we're stuck with the way it is that's fine. We can live with it. Thanks, again. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> I would think the other proponents will agree not to >> worry unduly about the slight confusion. Perhaps >> the change can be smoothly made with the second >> posting of the CFV? I would think it's best for >> news.groups and everyone involved to just keep it >> going now. > >I have heard from everyone except tale and things will continue unless >he feels otherwise. From your email it doesn't look like he will. >The second CFV needs to be the same as the first, especially with a >vote like this. > >BTW, the problem was that you did not update the PQ. I don't know >where, if anywhere, it says this in the material you had access to, >but it is considered to be the proponents responsibility. I don't >know if you intend to do this again, but it's something you might want >to remember... > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:10 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Dave Cornejo Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:10 PM Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >Sorry. It was my fault. The PQ didn't really ask for the entire new >RFD so I just assumed it would be changed since Tale and Bill >Aten, I think, too, knew about the changes. > >I and others would prefer the changes but if we're stuck with >the way it is that's fine. We can live with it. > >Thanks, again. > >Fred > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Cornejo >To: Frederick Glaysher >Cc: dave@dogwood.com ; house@usq.edu.au >; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; >fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au > >Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:53 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: CFV - talk.religion.bahai > > >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> I would think the other proponents will agree not to >>> worry unduly about the slight confusion. Perhaps >>> the change can be smoothly made with the second >>> posting of the CFV? I would think it's best for >>> news.groups and everyone involved to just keep it >>> going now. >> >>I have heard from everyone except tale and things will continue unless >>he feels otherwise. From your email it doesn't look like he will. >>The second CFV needs to be the same as the first, especially with a >>vote like this. >> >>BTW, the problem was that you did not update the PQ. I don't know >>where, if anywhere, it says this in the material you had access to, >>but it is considered to be the proponents responsibility. I don't >>know if you intend to do this again, but it's something you might want >>to remember... >> >>-- >>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >>General Magician & Registered Be Developer >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:13 PM To: RobertNik@aol.com Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. You have to get the ballot from either one of the newsgroups or by email the votetaker and then make your choice and send it back in to him: Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. -----Original Message----- From: RobertNik@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:55 PM Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. >Hi >what do I do to vote? >regards >R. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:19 PM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. Bahais are pulling all kinds of dirty tricks already! On AOL someone is pretending to be me and has posted three inflammatory messages today.... And then it's all Bahai love and pretense. Supposedly an Australian NSA member became a proponent in early October but he's never posted a single message, let alone one of support.... The Bakers, two other supposed proponents, have been deceitful as can be all along too. And then now for more than a month no one has said anything--just shunned the whole thing-- really it's been like that since September.... So there's no telling what's going to happen again. If you can bring in a hundred votes, or any number, it would help.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: McKenny Michael To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 4:00 PM Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. >Greetings, Frederick. > Many thanks for letting me know this. > Very Best Wishes, > Michael > > > >-- >"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > ---------- From: Shakti3@aol.com[SMTP:Shakti3@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 7:15 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 Dear Fred: Sorry to hear that you've been surpressed on srb. Your comments were alway very "right on." Altho it does not surprise me one bit, seeing the way these newsgroups operate. I stop by the ng every now and then but really don't have any interest in perusing it on a regular basis. I was a Bahai for about 6 months -- long enough to realize that this was NOT a faith I wanted to be a part of for many reasons. Good luck with your campaign and on the path! Namaste, Shakti ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:37 AM To: Bill Aten Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; Dave Cornejo Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we have this little glitch with my not realizing I should have deleted the two passages everyone agreed to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the only ones likely to care about those passages anyway though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one to soc.religion.bahai. I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Subject: talk.religion.bahai PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- 25 Dec Votetaker: Dave Cornejo CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai soc.rights.human talk.religion.misc -- Bill Aten Member of UVV ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:41 AM Subject: Re: AOL Bahai Forums - Steve Case, Mark Foster Bruce Raynor asked for a revised draft that we could all send into AOL requesting that they do something about the state of the Bahai Forums. I for one do not believe there is any illogic involved. Allowing the Forums to stagnate plays very much to the advantage of fundamentalist Bahais who at least control the status quo which prevents many things from improving or happening.... Ms. Maneck knows that that's the case.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Smaneck wrote in message <19981204230741.05516.00000211@ng-ch1.aol.com>... >Mr. Glaysher does not seem to see the illogic in claiming that the Forum Leader >has been absent for months and saying the AOL Message Board is being censored! >In fact Mark Foster's absence has been a problem, which we are taking our own >steps to recitify, and I know *no one* who participates on AOL that I know >would like his assistance with this. Like you, they are all saying "whose we?" > >warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:45 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: AOL TOSGeneral - false post using my name on Bahai Forums Roger Reini wrote in message <366a8970.14623627@news.newsguy.com>... >This is most unfortunate. The forger used a very similar screen name >to Fred's, except that he/she substituted a capital I for the >lower-case l. In some newsreaders, these are indistinguishable. > >This act should be condemned and the perpetrator disciplined. Thanks, Roger. I have alerted AOL and I hope they're working on it. They have made several suggestions. I think it's important to notice the timing of this incident and vow to hold together the perhaps fragile new agreement over the neutral, technical RFD that seems to have been put together by all concerned over the last 3 or 4 months. It seems obvious the person masquerading as me was hoping to attack and damage the talk.religion.bahai proposal just at the moment when voting is now beginning.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:45 AM Subject: Re: AOL TOSGeneral - false post using my name on Bahai Forums Roger Reini wrote in message <366a8970.14623627@news.newsguy.com>... >This is most unfortunate. The forger used a very similar screen name >to Fred's, except that he/she substituted a capital I for the >lower-case l. In some newsreaders, these are indistinguishable. > >This act should be condemned and the perpetrator disciplined. Thanks, Roger. I have alerted AOL and I hope they're working on it. They have made several suggestions. I think it's important to notice the timing of this incident and vow to hold together the perhaps fragile new agreement over the neutral, technical RFD that seems to have been put together by all concerned over the last 3 or 4 months. It seems obvious the person masquerading as me was hoping to attack and damage the talk.religion.bahai proposal just at the moment when voting is now beginning.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:48 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: How Soc.Religion.Bahai Censures the truth about Bahai activities.... Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <74a9ub$ggn$1@supernews.com>... >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129111808.08734.00001980@ng123.aol.com>... >>Quite typical of the way soc.religion.bahai "moderators" operate.... >> >>For other similar examples see >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > > >It is truly unfortunate! How do they expect anyone to feel anything >but mistrust toward the people who moderate that forum. I am >afraid they do not help their talk of the superiority of Bahaism >with their actions... > >May Allah guide sincere seekers of Truth from their censorship >and propaganda. I couldn't agree more, Kavosh! But often at times it has seemed to me in my weakness that Allah's got other things to do when it comes to srb.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:48 AM Subject: Re: How Soc.Religion.Bahai Censures the truth about Bahai activities.... Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <74a9ub$ggn$1@supernews.com>... >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129111808.08734.00001980@ng123.aol.com>... >>Quite typical of the way soc.religion.bahai "moderators" operate.... >> >>For other similar examples see >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > > >It is truly unfortunate! How do they expect anyone to feel anything >but mistrust toward the people who moderate that forum. I am >afraid they do not help their talk of the superiority of Bahaism >with their actions... > >May Allah guide sincere seekers of Truth from their censorship >and propaganda. I couldn't agree more, Kavosh! But often at times it has seemed to me in my weakness that Allah's got other things to do when it comes to srb.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Soc.Religion.Bahai is the House of Bahai Missionaries and Routinely Censures non-Bahais Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <74a1vo$nji$1@supernews.com>... >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981129112740.08734.00001985@ng123.aol.com>... >>For more than two years now I've read messages from Muslims >>complaining about being censored on soc.religion.bahai. >>I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best >>interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai. >>The actual voting for the interest poll should begin this week on >>the group called news.groups... > >Hello. > >Thank you for your interest to the subject at hand. I, however, >have a couple of questions: > > 1. How would such a list differ from alt.religion.bahai or >soc.religion.bahai? > > 2. How would it resolve the issue of censurship on soc.religion.bahai? > >Regards. I would be on a major hierarchy and widely accessible as further explained in the "alt.religion.bahai FAQ." Talk.religion.bahai would give people, Bahais, non-Bahais, Muslims, everyone, an alternative to soc.religion.bahai. There are many people who still cannot read the alt.* hierarchy because their news servers do not carry it. Trb would not "solve" srb's censorship problem, only srb can do that.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: Robert J. Pease[SMTP:bobpease@concentric.net] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 7:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 > when they began suppressing people's signature files: > > The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun for an > unmoderated newsgroup on the Baha'i Faith. > > The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. > You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. > > The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on > news.announce.newgroups > news.groups > alt.religion.bahai > soc.religion.bahai > soc.rights.human > > or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting > the trb CFV ballot. > -- > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. I support your efforts to expose SRB as a fundamentalist group. I have not been allowed to post there unless I back up any objection to their version of dogma with verse and chapter quotes. ---------- From: Vote Here[SMTP:vote@dogwood.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 12:55 PM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] CFV: talk.religion.bahai <> ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 1:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bill@netagw.com; srb-mods@bcca.org; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; dave@dogwood.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV The moderator of soc.religion.bahai should have a copy. I believe we're just waiting for them to approve and post it. I won't modify a special version of the first CFV for them as that would make it different from the 1st for every other group. To do this I think we'd probably have to cancel and restart the vote - something I'm not real keen on as we already run over Christmas. I could, but would not recommend, that we change it for the second posting. In cases like this in the past, the change generated more problems than it solved. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 1:33 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Okay, let's go with it as is but I have to warn you that in the past soc.religion.bahai has held on to a RFD as long as 4 or 5 days before posting it.... There's no telling what they're going to do now with the CFV if they interpret the one sentence as too negative to post thought they posted the RFD with it in a month or two ago as well as the same sentence in the RFD during the 2nd interest poll last year (FYI, This is the 3rd interest poll.) The natural and most important place for the RFD and CFV to appear is of course soc.religion.bahai. It almost two days now since you first posted it and still no sign of it on my server. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bill@netagw.com ; srb-mods@bcca.org ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; dave@dogwood.com Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 1:14 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >The moderator of soc.religion.bahai should have a copy. I believe >we're just waiting for them to approve and post it. I won't modify a >special version of the first CFV for them as that would make it >different from the 1st for every other group. To do this I think we'd >probably have to cancel and restart the vote - something I'm not real >keen on as we already run over Christmas. > >I could, but would not recommend, that we change it for the second >posting. In cases like this in the past, the change generated more >problems than it solved. > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 2:52 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Dave and Frederick, I understand Dave's point about the consequences of such a change and suggest that we not try to change the passages. Rather, I would suggest that we (1) let the CFV go forward as it is and (2) post a follow-up note to the effect that These two passages, 'xx1' and 'xx2', were included in the CFV through an oversight. 'xx1' was intended to be deleted and 'xx2' was intended to read 'xx3.' The proponents apologize for this error. Unless I hear otherwise, I will post such a comment tomorrow where the CFV has appeared and to SRB as soon as the CFV appears there. Dave -- Please let me know if this would create any problem related to the protocol of the voting process. Thanks. Regards, -- Frank At 01:33 PM 12/5/98 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Okay, let's go with it as is but I have to warn you that >in the past soc.religion.bahai has held on to a RFD >as long as 4 or 5 days before posting it.... There's >no telling what they're going to do now with the CFV >if they interpret the one sentence as too negative to >post thought they posted the RFD with it in a month >or two ago as well as the same sentence in the RFD >during the 2nd interest poll last year (FYI, This is the 3rd >interest poll.) > >The natural and most important place for the RFD and >CFV to appear is of course soc.religion.bahai. It almost >two days now since you first posted it and still no sign of >it on my server. > >Fred > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Cornejo >To: Frederick Glaysher >Cc: bill@netagw.com ; srb-mods@bcca.org >; house@usq.edu.au ; >fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu >; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; >dave@dogwood.com >Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 1:14 PM >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > >>The moderator of soc.religion.bahai should have a copy. I believe >>we're just waiting for them to approve and post it. I won't modify a >>special version of the first CFV for them as that would make it >>different from the 1st for every other group. To do this I think we'd >>probably have to cancel and restart the vote - something I'm not real >>keen on as we already run over Christmas. >> >>I could, but would not recommend, that we change it for the second >>posting. In cases like this in the past, the change generated more >>problems than it solved. >> >>-- >>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >>General Magician & Registered Be Developer >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 3:45 PM To: Frank Baker Cc: Dave Cornejo; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Good idea, Frank, I'm all in favor of your handling it. Best to keep the poll going at this point. Maybe you should email directly the moderators at srb right away. They might be struggling over whether to post it or not thinking I'm trying something dirty when it was just a goof up on part; it is entirely fault; just didn't occur to me. Thanks. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Frank Baker To: Frederick Glaysher ; Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 3:01 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >Dave and Frederick, > >I understand Dave's point about the consequences of such >a change and suggest that we not try to change the passages. > >Rather, I would suggest that we (1) let the CFV go forward >as it is and (2) post a follow-up note to the effect that > These two passages, 'xx1' and 'xx2', were included > in the CFV through an oversight. 'xx1' was intended > to be deleted and 'xx2' was intended to read 'xx3.' > The proponents apologize for this error. >Unless I hear otherwise, I will post such a comment tomorrow >where the CFV has appeared and to SRB as soon as the CFV >appears there. > >Dave -- Please let me know if this would create any problem >related to the protocol of the voting process. Thanks. > >Regards, >-- Frank > >At 01:33 PM 12/5/98 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Okay, let's go with it as is but I have to warn you that >>in the past soc.religion.bahai has held on to a RFD >>as long as 4 or 5 days before posting it.... There's >>no telling what they're going to do now with the CFV >>if they interpret the one sentence as too negative to >>post thought they posted the RFD with it in a month >>or two ago as well as the same sentence in the RFD >>during the 2nd interest poll last year (FYI, This is the 3rd >>interest poll.) >> >>The natural and most important place for the RFD and >>CFV to appear is of course soc.religion.bahai. It almost >>two days now since you first posted it and still no sign of >>it on my server. >> >>Fred >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dave Cornejo >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Cc: bill@netagw.com ; srb-mods@bcca.org >>; house@usq.edu.au ; >>fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu >>; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; >>dave@dogwood.com >>Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 1:14 PM >>Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >> >> >>>The moderator of soc.religion.bahai should have a copy. I believe >>>we're just waiting for them to approve and post it. I won't modify a >>>special version of the first CFV for them as that would make it >>>different from the 1st for every other group. To do this I think we'd >>>probably have to cancel and restart the vote - something I'm not real >>>keen on as we already run over Christmas. >>> >>>I could, but would not recommend, that we change it for the second >>>posting. In cases like this in the past, the change generated more >>>problems than it solved. >>> >>>-- >>>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >>>General Magician & Registered Be Developer >>> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 3:56 PM Subject: Pointers have all been posted The Dave Cornejo the votetaker had left the pointers for me to post. I've got them all done now. The CFV seems to have appeared everywhere now but soc.religion.bahai. Has anyone seen it there? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:31 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 Rick On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "Bill Aten" > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , > "John Walker" , > "Dave Cornejo" > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > to soc.religion.bahai. > > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > > > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > 25 Dec > > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > news.groups > alt.religion.bahai > soc.rights.human > talk.religion.misc > > -- > Bill Aten > Member of UVV > ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 3:35 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com; Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. Rick Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Cornejo Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , "Frank Baker" , "Fran Baker" , Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > reference.com.... > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Boatright > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Walker> > Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > Rick > > On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > To: "Bill Aten" > > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > "Frank Baker" , > > "Fran Baker" , > > "John Walker" , > > "Dave Cornejo" > > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > > > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > > > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > > > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > 25 Dec > > > > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > news.groups > > alt.religion.bahai > > soc.rights.human > > talk.religion.misc > > > > -- > > Bill Aten > > Member of UVV > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 7:57 AM To: tricia@glonet.co.nz Subject: Re: unmoderated? No votes are not permissible on the basis you outline below. Only for Usenet computer system, technical reasons are no votes allowed. There are no legitimate technical flaws in the proposal. A no vote would therefore be depriving other people of the freedom of conscience that Abdu'l-Baha respected: "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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91 Your reasoning of suppressing Bahais around the world because of the fanatics in Iran is not logical in my opinion. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. -----Original Message----- From: Tricia Hague-Blackford To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: unmoderated? I am sorry, but I do not agree with having an area unmoderated, as if you remember, if one thing is said in one country, it can mean the death of the Baha'is in Iran. We have to be careful and I doubt that the Baha'is would be able to moderate themselves enough, for many of them are not deepened Baha'is. Many of them still have egos and they think they are right. It is Baha'u'llah Who is right all the time, and we are only right when we subject ourselves to His teachings and Writings. I am afraid that those who take part in their ego tripping about what they know, may inadvertently, or even on purpose, say something which may put thousands of our fellow believers in Iran in prisons or killed..... Therefore I vote against such an area. Date sent: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 15:27:06 -0500 From: FG To: tricia@glonet.co.nz Subject: I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 > I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 > when they began suppressing people's signature files: > > The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun for an > unmoderated newsgroup on the Baha'i Faith. > > The Call For Votes (CFV) was posted on December 3, 1998. > You may vote at this time. Voting ends December 25, 1998. > > The talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on > news.announce.newgroups > news.groups > alt.religion.bahai > soc.religion.bahai > soc.rights.human > > or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting > the trb CFV ballot. > -- > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. With Loving Baha'i Greetings, TeeCee Hamilton, New Zealand ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: Re: AOL Bahai Forums - Steve Case, Mark Foster Reset followups to alt.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <366875AB.19BFB6CE@usa.net>... > > >planetjeff@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> I don't pretend to know or understand the things going on over in the AOL >> forums, but... >> >> Who are "we" and the "others"? I haven't heard anyone else complain about >> this. Why is the message written in this manner, to give the impression it >> has the implicit backing of a group of people? Didn't you (Fred) write this? >> If you are representing a group, was it delegated to you to write this >> letter, or is this of your own volition? If so, can you truthfully state >> "we" and "others" as if you are speaking for other people? > >I seriously doubt that Fredrick is going to respond to your >concerns. > >-saman > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: Question for Frederick Glaysher... "The Bahai Technique": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. rafaj wrote in message <41ha2.134$aj7.216@news.rdc1.az.home.com>... >Hello, Fred. > >A few weeks ago, somebody told me you had withdrawn (administratively) from the >Baha'i Faith. He said this was to avoid possible "sanctions". > >Rather than implicitly believing hearsay, however, I thought I'd ask you >directly. Is this pure bunk? If not, what's the story? (If you don't mind >discussing it, that is) > >rafaj > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Question for Frederick Glaysher... "The Bahai Technique": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. rafaj wrote in message <41ha2.134$aj7.216@news.rdc1.az.home.com>... >Hello, Fred. > >A few weeks ago, somebody told me you had withdrawn (administratively) from the >Baha'i Faith. He said this was to avoid possible "sanctions". > >Rather than implicitly believing hearsay, however, I thought I'd ask you >directly. Is this pure bunk? If not, what's the story? (If you don't mind >discussing it, that is) > >rafaj > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:17 AM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or reference.com.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 Rick On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "Bill Aten" > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , > "John Walker" , > "Dave Cornejo" > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > to soc.religion.bahai. > > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > > > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > 25 Dec > > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > news.groups > alt.religion.bahai > soc.rights.human > talk.religion.misc > > -- > Bill Aten > Member of UVV > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:19 AM To: FG@aol.com Subject: CFV FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai Newsgroups line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Dec 1998. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent. Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker Proponent: Frank Baker Proponent: John Walker Votetaker: Dave Cornejo 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. 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. HOW TO VOTE: Follow these instructions *exactly*! Votes are counted by computer. You should send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to: vote@dogwood.com Please do not assume that just replying to this message will work. Check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail message should contain one and only one of the following vote statements: I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai I vote NO on talk.religion.bahai Voter name: If your mail software does not indicate your real name (for example, AOL does not), include _exactly_ the statement above on a _separate_ line and add your name after the colon. Having your name in your signature line is NOT enough! Do NOT join the lines together or remove the words "Voter name"! You may also vote ABSTAIN (which records an empty vote) or CANCEL (which removes any earlier votes). ABSTAIN does not affect the final vote count in any way but is listed, whereas CANCEL is not. IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One vote per person, one account per voter. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous votes. Votes from non-existent email addresses are not valid. Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses, names and votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results post. The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. ***** SPECIAL NOTE: DUE TO THE CHRISTMAS BREAK AND OTHER FACTORS THE RESULTS FOR THIS GROUP ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER THAN NORMAL TO BE POSTED. ***** DISTRIBUTION: In addition to the groups named in the Newsgroups: header, the CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing lists: Mailing list name: Talisman Submission address: talisman@umich.edu Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu Mailing list name: Bahai Studies Submission address: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us Mailing list name: h-Bahai Submission address: h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Request address: jrcole@umich.edu Mailing list name: bahai-faith Submission address: bahai-faith@egroups.com Request address: bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups: alt.religion 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 talk.philosophy.humanism talk.philosophy.misc uk.religion.interfaith uk.religion.misc uk.religion.other-faiths -- Voting question & problems: Dave Cornejo Voting address: vote@dogwood.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 4:32 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com; boatright@cjnetworks.com; Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Rick and Frederick, I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several articles listed as Subject: unknown From: Rick Troxel The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. Regards, -- Frank At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > >Rick > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) >From: Dave Cornejo >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or >> reference.com.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rick Boatright >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > Walker> >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >> >> >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 >> >> Rick >> >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" >> > To: "Bill Aten" >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , >> > "Frank Baker" , >> > "Fran Baker" , >> > "John Walker" , >> > "Dave Cornejo" >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 >> >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. >> > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one >> > to soc.religion.bahai. >> > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. >> > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. >> > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- >> > 25 Dec >> > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups >> > news.groups >> > alt.religion.bahai >> > soc.rights.human >> > talk.religion.misc >> > >> > -- >> > Bill Aten >> > Member of UVV >> > >> >> > > > ---------- From: World@msnbc.com[SMTP:world@MSNBC.COM] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 7:32 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Thanks! Thank you for e-mailing MSNBC. Although the overwhelming number of responses we receive prevents us from responding individually, we value contributions, comments, and suggestions from our viewers. We want you to know that they are an important source of information for us. Be assured that your e-mail will be routed to the appropriate staff members. Please continue to visit and contribute to MSNBC as we grow. Thank you, MSNBC Community Staff ============ If you want to know if your cable company is CONNECTED with MSNBC, please visit https://www.msnbc.com/CableOperator.asp to find out. For a complete MSNBC cable program guide, visit the On Air section of MSNBC Interactive at https://www.msnbc.com/oasched.asp To see a listing of online chats conducted by MSNBC, please visit our chat section at https://chat.msnbc.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:19 PM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ FYI -----Original Message----- From: Smaneck Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:45 AM Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ > >This is so much garbage. > >Fred writes: > >>Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?" >> >>ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place >>here] > >THE TRUTH: Whatever the personal opinions the moderators of srb have remained >scrupulously nuetral on the question of forming this list. Some of the >moderators have even voted *for* it in the past. Mark Towfiq, I might add, is >*not* a moderator. > >It is true that Fred Glaysher has often not been able to get his stuff posted. >This is largely because of his tendency to spam and become abusive. > > >>October 14, 1998: Soc.religion.bahai moderator Bill Hyman >>backbites and casts aspersions on proponent Ron House >>and attempts to undermine the new support for the >>"neutral" RFD: > >Again, a distortion. Bill Hyman wrote Fred a *personal* letter asking Fred for >clarification and raising questions as to Ron House's status. It is Fred who >chose to publicize that letter which contained misunderstandings as to Ron >House's status as a Baha'i. (Ron is a Baha'i from Australia in good standing.) > >If Fred sincerely wanted to form an unmoderated list on the Baha'i Faith he >would have my full support. After all, I run one! But he clearly wishes to >utilize this issue to spread disinformation about the Baha'is. > >warmest, Susan > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:20 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Another Massive NO VOTE? It might be helpful for others to hear from other proponents on this. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Fglaysher Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 10:46 AM Subject: Another Massive NO VOTE? >Some Bahais appear to be attacking the latest, 3rd proposal >for talk.religion.bahai in ways similar to the past. May I ask >those Bahais who have stated that they support the technical, >neutral RFD and CFV to please speak and defend it? > >Very little discussion has taken place this time about WHY >Bahais will disgrace themselves again should there be another >massive NO vote as there was the first time. Perhaps it should >also be pointed out that there are no legitimate reasonings for >voting NO since only technical reasons qualify as such and >there are none in this proposal. To vote NO would be considered >CENSORING and DEPRVING others of their rights of freedom >of speech on Usenet.... > >An earlier RFD had an eloquent passage to this effect in it >which I quote for the benefit of others: > >An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully beconsidered 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." >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:26 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Another Massive NO VOTE? Christian, Thanks for your many comments. Let me focus only one fact of Usenet interest polls: to vote NO for ANY reason other than technical is censorship.... I'll let other proponents and interested parties explain why. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Christian Gruber wrote in message <74ed5r$8lq$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >Greetings. > >I do not support a document, but I do support the idea of an >unmoderated newsgroup. > > >First, why I support such a newsgroup being created: >(I'll deal with my view of the document in question momentarily) > >I feel that it is appropriate to have both. The s.r.b provides >a newsgroup free of the worst abuses and histeria and non- >relevant discussion, and it has the advantage of being low- >bandwidth, high-content. > >a.r.b and a presumed t.r.b would have much more noise to >signal. However, I truly thrive in an environment where there >is such noise, as I personally am comfortable filtering the B.S. >and getting at the kernels of truth, and from them engaging in >stimulating discussion. I would like to have this a.r.b property >in a more widely carried forum. > >I recognize the dangers, and I agree that such openness comes >at a risk of significant abuses and ill-mannered debate, however, >I believe that Baha'is and others are able to be responsible adults, >and that the group should censure (not censor) those who are >abusive by posting or e-mailing suggestions, assistance, clarification, >or admonishments. I feel that we need to pass the test of a t.r.b and >learn to live Baha'i lives in the midst of mayhem and madness, and >to illustrate a truly Baha'i response to such. > >Having said that I understand why many are not comfortable with >this and I have to admit, it is risky. I feel that the risk is worth it, >but >others don't. That's fine, I'm happy to live with either result. > >In otherwords, I like the idea, but frankly, I'm not worried about it >not happening. I am in the "Insh'allah" catagory around this. It is >the Will of God or it isn't, and I'm just not attached to it either way. > >As to my view of this document. I do not support the document. >It is a piece of electronic paper. It is meaningless. It is a good >statement of some ideas as to why a t.r.b would be necessary. > >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981206104608.07422.00002807@ng125.aol.com>... >>Some Bahais appear to be attacking the latest, 3rd proposal >>for talk.religion.bahai in ways similar to the past. May I ask >>those Bahais who have stated that they support the technical, >>neutral RFD and CFV to please speak and defend it? > > >I'm concerned that any disagreement with the proposal will be >seen as an attack. I agree with the idea of a t.r.b, but I do not >believe that opponents of it are bad, evil, nasty, or even misguided. >They just believe differently, and are right to state that if asked. > >>Very little discussion has taken place this time about WHY >>Bahais will disgrace themselves again should there be another >>massive NO vote as there was the first time. Perhaps it should >>also be pointed out that there are no legitimate reasonings for >>voting NO since only technical reasons qualify as such and >>there are none in this proposal. To vote NO would be considered >>CENSORING and DEPRVING others of their rights of freedom >>of speech on Usenet.... > > >It is this kind of posturing which discourages people from supporting >this proposal. Baha'is are not "disgracing themselves" by voting NO, >they are acting according to their conscience. Period. I refuse to >ascribe nefarious motives to an unrepresented group of people in >a political document. It's simply not intellectually honest. > >The interpretation of a NO vote by Frederick or anyone else as an >attempt to censor is rediculous. It is a democratic exercise. if he >doesn't like it, fine. That's really tough luck. Personally I think that >Baha'u'llah's injunction to be detatched and to "Turn entirely unto >God" in matters such as this would be much more useful than turning >to polemics and such. No one is depriving anyone. Alt groups are >specifically for those who wish to speak. For a community to >democratically determine the use of its resources is quite reasonable. > >>"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. > >Um. What Frederick is attempting to do is a block vote on political >ground of Freedom of Speech and Conscience grounds. I'm not >aware of any organized attempt to block this group. I am aware >of many Baha'is who have arrived at the opinion that the culture of >this proposed newsgroup would be very much like a.r.b which many >Baha'is are uncomfortable with. This kind of political posturing is >certainly something which I would expect to put-off Baha'is who have >a culture that is constantly moving towards a-political, concept-oriented >discussion, over arguementative posturing and name-calling. (That >was not intended as an accusation of Frederick, but rather a >summation of the perception of many Baha'is about the character >of the debate on a.r.b) > >>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. > >Frederick, is there any way in which a no vote would be acceptable >to you as the result of individuals voting according to their conscience. >Do you have so little faith in humanity that you must ascribe such >motives here? Do you not consider these statements of yours to >be a kind of Block Vote encouragement. How do you define Block >Voting then. > >>In other words, yes, the Baha'i >>*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. > > >Individuals could do it too :) > >>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." > >Hmm. Vote based on whether people will like you or not. Isn't that >completely contrary to Baha'i culture, law and practice? > >Sincerely, >Christian Gruber > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Another Massive NO VOTE? Christian, Thanks for your many comments. Let me focus only one fact of Usenet interest polls: to vote NO for ANY reason other than technical is censorship.... I'll let other proponents and interested parties explain why. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. Christian Gruber wrote in message <74ed5r$8lq$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >Greetings. > >I do not support a document, but I do support the idea of an >unmoderated newsgroup. > > >First, why I support such a newsgroup being created: >(I'll deal with my view of the document in question momentarily) > >I feel that it is appropriate to have both. The s.r.b provides >a newsgroup free of the worst abuses and histeria and non- >relevant discussion, and it has the advantage of being low- >bandwidth, high-content. > >a.r.b and a presumed t.r.b would have much more noise to >signal. However, I truly thrive in an environment where there >is such noise, as I personally am comfortable filtering the B.S. >and getting at the kernels of truth, and from them engaging in >stimulating discussion. I would like to have this a.r.b property >in a more widely carried forum. > >I recognize the dangers, and I agree that such openness comes >at a risk of significant abuses and ill-mannered debate, however, >I believe that Baha'is and others are able to be responsible adults, >and that the group should censure (not censor) those who are >abusive by posting or e-mailing suggestions, assistance, clarification, >or admonishments. I feel that we need to pass the test of a t.r.b and >learn to live Baha'i lives in the midst of mayhem and madness, and >to illustrate a truly Baha'i response to such. > >Having said that I understand why many are not comfortable with >this and I have to admit, it is risky. I feel that the risk is worth it, >but >others don't. That's fine, I'm happy to live with either result. > >In otherwords, I like the idea, but frankly, I'm not worried about it >not happening. I am in the "Insh'allah" catagory around this. It is >the Will of God or it isn't, and I'm just not attached to it either way. > >As to my view of this document. I do not support the document. >It is a piece of electronic paper. It is meaningless. It is a good >statement of some ideas as to why a t.r.b would be necessary. > >Fglaysher wrote in message <19981206104608.07422.00002807@ng125.aol.com>... >>Some Bahais appear to be attacking the latest, 3rd proposal >>for talk.religion.bahai in ways similar to the past. May I ask >>those Bahais who have stated that they support the technical, >>neutral RFD and CFV to please speak and defend it? > > >I'm concerned that any disagreement with the proposal will be >seen as an attack. I agree with the idea of a t.r.b, but I do not >believe that opponents of it are bad, evil, nasty, or even misguided. >They just believe differently, and are right to state that if asked. > >>Very little discussion has taken place this time about WHY >>Bahais will disgrace themselves again should there be another >>massive NO vote as there was the first time. Perhaps it should >>also be pointed out that there are no legitimate reasonings for >>voting NO since only technical reasons qualify as such and >>there are none in this proposal. To vote NO would be considered >>CENSORING and DEPRVING others of their rights of freedom >>of speech on Usenet.... > > >It is this kind of posturing which discourages people from supporting >this proposal. Baha'is are not "disgracing themselves" by voting NO, >they are acting according to their conscience. Period. I refuse to >ascribe nefarious motives to an unrepresented group of people in >a political document. It's simply not intellectually honest. > >The interpretation of a NO vote by Frederick or anyone else as an >attempt to censor is rediculous. It is a democratic exercise. if he >doesn't like it, fine. That's really tough luck. Personally I think that >Baha'u'llah's injunction to be detatched and to "Turn entirely unto >God" in matters such as this would be much more useful than turning >to polemics and such. No one is depriving anyone. Alt groups are >specifically for those who wish to speak. For a community to >democratically determine the use of its resources is quite reasonable. > >>"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. > >Um. What Frederick is attempting to do is a block vote on political >ground of Freedom of Speech and Conscience grounds. I'm not >aware of any organized attempt to block this group. I am aware >of many Baha'is who have arrived at the opinion that the culture of >this proposed newsgroup would be very much like a.r.b which many >Baha'is are uncomfortable with. This kind of political posturing is >certainly something which I would expect to put-off Baha'is who have >a culture that is constantly moving towards a-political, concept-oriented >discussion, over arguementative posturing and name-calling. (That >was not intended as an accusation of Frederick, but rather a >summation of the perception of many Baha'is about the character >of the debate on a.r.b) > >>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. > >Frederick, is there any way in which a no vote would be acceptable >to you as the result of individuals voting according to their conscience. >Do you have so little faith in humanity that you must ascribe such >motives here? Do you not consider these statements of yours to >be a kind of Block Vote encouragement. How do you define Block >Voting then. > >>In other words, yes, the Baha'i >>*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. > > >Individuals could do it too :) > >>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." > >Hmm. Vote based on whether people will like you or not. Isn't that >completely contrary to Baha'i culture, law and practice? > >Sincerely, >Christian Gruber > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:12 PM To: Frank Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Frank, Gee, that's some technical problem, all right.... -----Original Message----- From: Frank Baker To: boatright@cjnetworks.com ; boatright@cjnetworks.com ; Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >Rick and Frederick, > >I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort >of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission >process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several >articles listed as > Subject: unknown > From: Rick Troxel >The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > >Regards, >-- Frank > > >At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: >>Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. >> >>I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. >> >>Rick >> >>Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) >>Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) >>From: Dave Cornejo >>Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com >>Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai >> >> >>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>To: >>Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , >> "Frank Baker" , >> "Fran Baker" , >>Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 >> >>> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or >>> reference.com.... >>> >>> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >>> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >>> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rick Boatright >>> To: Frederick Glaysher >>> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker >>> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker >> Walker> >>> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>> >>> >>> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> >>> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>> > To: "Bill Aten" >>> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , >>> > "Frank Baker" , >>> > "Fran Baker" , >>> > "John Walker" , >>> > "Dave Cornejo" >>> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 >>> >>> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it >>> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai >>> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we >>> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should >>> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed >>> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from >>> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the >>> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway >>> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during >>> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the >>> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post >>> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" >>> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. >>> > >>> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one >>> > to soc.religion.bahai. >>> > >>> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be >>> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. >>> > >>> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. >>> > >>> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >>> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >>> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, >>> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker >>> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai >>> > >>> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote >>> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- >>> > 25 Dec >>> > >>> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo >>> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups >>> > news.groups >>> > alt.religion.bahai >>> > soc.rights.human >>> > talk.religion.misc >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Bill Aten >>> > Member of UVV >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Pointers have all been posted Christian Gruber wrote in message <74e88o$som$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >Hello all. >I replied to the one in soc.religion.bahai. It is definately there. > >I have cast my vote, so I can assure you it can be found there. I've heard, though, the Subject line has "unknown" in it instead of the "CFV: talk.religion.bahai." I would think it would make it a little harder to find, don't you? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:23 PM Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ Christian Gruber wrote in message <74eklp$m7e$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... > >There is no room for personal attack, no matter what the incitement, but >criticism of one's ideas and opinions freely offered to the public should >also not be considered attack. Abd'ul-Baha is very clear about such things. Are you familiar with anywhere in the Writings where Abdu'l-Baha calls someone else's ideas "garbage"? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: Richard Hollinger[SMTP:lbhollin@ust.hk] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:46 AM To: Vote Here Cc: FG@hotmail.com; lbhollin@ust.hk Subject: CFV for talk.religion.bahai on H-Bahai Dear Proponents of TRB, I have discussed the matter with the other moderators of H-Bahai, and the consensus is that the CFV is off-topic for this list. However, since it is likely to be of some interest to a number of H-Bahai subscribers, we can post a short notice with a url or email address where those interested can get further information. Richard Hollinger > > Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Dec 1998. > > This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions > about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent. > > Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > Proponent: Ron House > Proponent: Fran Baker > Proponent: Frank Baker > Proponent: John Walker > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > 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. > > 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. > > HOW TO VOTE: > > Follow these instructions *exactly*! Votes are counted by computer. > You should send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to: > > vote@dogwood.com > > Please do not assume that just replying to this message will work. > Check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail message > should contain one and only one of the following vote statements: > > I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai > I vote NO on talk.religion.bahai > > Voter name: > > If your mail software does not indicate your real name (for example, > AOL does not), include _exactly_ the statement above on a _separate_ > line and add your name after the colon. Having your name in your > signature line is NOT enough! Do NOT join the lines together or > remove the words "Voter name"! > > You may also vote ABSTAIN (which records an empty vote) or CANCEL > (which removes any earlier votes). ABSTAIN does not affect the final > vote count in any way but is listed, whereas CANCEL is not. > > IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: > > Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One vote per person, one > account per voter. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to > the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid. > Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered to be anonymous > votes. Votes from non-existent email addresses are not valid. > > Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may > mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an > acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker > about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is > registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the > most recent valid vote. Addresses, names and votes of all voters will > be published in the final voting results post. > > The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of > persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from > disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute > this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to > news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited > copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud. When in > doubt, ask the votetaker. > > ***** > > SPECIAL NOTE: DUE TO THE CHRISTMAS BREAK AND OTHER FACTORS THE RESULTS > FOR THIS GROUP ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER THAN NORMAL TO BE POSTED. > > ***** > > DISTRIBUTION: > > In addition to the groups named in the Newsgroups: header, the CFV > and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing lists: > > Mailing list name: Talisman > Submission address: talisman@umich.edu > Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Mailing list name: Bahai Studies > Submission address: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us > Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > Mailing list name: h-Bahai > Submission address: h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu > Request address: jrcole@umich.edu > > Mailing list name: bahai-faith > Submission address: bahai-faith@egroups.com > Request address: bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com > > Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups: > > alt.religion > 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 > talk.philosophy.humanism > talk.philosophy.misc > uk.religion.interfaith > uk.religion.misc > uk.religion.other-faiths > > -- > Voting question & problems: Dave Cornejo > Voting address: vote@dogwood.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:55 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: failure notice Messages to John Walker are bouncing.... Anyone know why? -----Original Message----- From: MAILER-DAEMON@hotmail.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:12 PM Subject: failure notice >Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotmail.com. >I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. >This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > >: >208.133.44.40 does not like recipient. >Remote host said: 550 ... User unknown >Giving up. > >--- Below this line is a copy of the message. > >Return-Path: >Received: (qmail 18580 invoked from network); 6 Dec 1998 22:12:20 -0000 >Received: from 203-215-221.ipt.aol.com (HELO glaysher.Library) (152.203.215.221) > by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 1998 22:12:20 -0000 >Message-ID: <000b01be2165$83e6b120$ddd7cb98@glaysher.Library> >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "Frank Baker" >Cc: "Ron House" , > "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:12:22 -0500 >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 > >Frank, > >Gee, that's some technical problem, all right.... > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Baker >To: boatright@cjnetworks.com ; >boatright@cjnetworks.com ; Frederick Glaysher > >Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker >; Fran Baker ; >John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org >Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 8:32 AM >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > >>Rick and Frederick, >> >>I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort >>of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission >>process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several >>articles listed as >> Subject: unknown >> From: Rick Troxel >>The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. >> >>Regards, >>-- Frank >> >> >>At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: >>>Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. >>> >>>I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. >>> >>>Rick >>> >>>Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) >>>Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) >>>From: Dave Cornejo >>>Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com >>>Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai >>> >>> >>>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>>To: >>>Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , >>> "Frank Baker" , >>> "Fran Baker" , >>>Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>>Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 >>> >>>> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or >>>> reference.com.... >>>> >>>> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>>> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >>>> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >>>> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rick Boatright >>>> To: Frederick Glaysher >>>> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker >>>> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker >>>> Walker> >>>> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM >>>> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>>> >>>> >>>> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 >>>> >>>> Rick >>>> >>>> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>>> >>>> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>>> > To: "Bill Aten" >>>> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" >, >>>> > "Frank Baker" , >>>> > "Fran Baker" , >>>> > "John Walker" , >>>> > "Dave Cornejo" >>>> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >>>> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 >>>> >>>> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it >>>> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai >>>> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we >>>> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should >>>> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed >>>> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from >>>> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the >>>> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway >>>> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during >>>> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the >>>> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post >>>> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" >>>> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. >>>> > >>>> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one >>>> > to soc.religion.bahai. >>>> > >>>> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be >>>> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. >>>> > >>>> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. >>>> > >>>> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >>>> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >>>> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, >>>> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker >>>> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai >>>> > >>>> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote >>>> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- >>>> > 25 Dec >>>> > >>>> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo >>>> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups >>>> > news.groups >>>> > alt.religion.bahai >>>> > soc.rights.human >>>> > talk.religion.misc >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Bill Aten >>>> > Member of UVV >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > ---------- From: Rafaj[SMTP:rafaj@io.net] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 2:32 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Question for Frederick Glaysher... In article <74dvii$evb@news1.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... > > >"The Bahai Technique": >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm Thank you for the pointer... I note, however, it does not seem to address the question? Maybe I missed it. If it's untrue, please say so. I'm sure clarifying this publicly would put to rest any hints of doubt. rafaj > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > >rafaj wrote in message <41ha2.134$aj7.216@news.rdc1.az.home.com>... >>Hello, Fred. >> >>A few weeks ago, somebody told me you had withdrawn (administratively) from >the >>Baha'i Faith. He said this was to avoid possible "sanctions". >> >>Rather than implicitly believing hearsay, however, I thought I'd ask you >>directly. Is this pure bunk? If not, what's the story? (If you don't mind >>discussing it, that is) >> >>rafaj >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 7:06 PM To: bmw@pilotonline.com Subject: MEDIA RELEASE MEDIA RELEASE For immediate release. . . Contact: Frederick Glaysher (248) 608-6424 668 Bolinger, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 USA FG@hotmail.com Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience On December 3rd the third interest poll began 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 banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, both appear ready for another stormy battle on alt.religion.bahai; unlike during the last interest poll, Bahais seemed to be agreed on keeping the controversy off news.groups, the discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always usually debated. With three Americans and two Australian proponents, 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. Dr. Cole has said, "The checks and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion, within the faith and without." https://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, with nearly 5,000 hits on it since May of this year: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 7:34 PM To: wtree@acs.wooster.edu Subject: MEDIA RELEASE MEDIA RELEASE For immediate release. . . Contact: Frederick Glaysher (248) 608-6424 668 Bolinger, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 USA FG@hotmail.com Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience On December 3rd the third interest poll began 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 banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, both appear ready for another stormy battle on alt.religion.bahai and AOL's Bahai Forum Message Boards; unlike during the last interest poll, Bahais seemed to be agreed on keeping the controversy off news.groups, the discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always usually debated. With three Americans and two Australian proponents, 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. Dr. Cole has said, "The checks and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion, within the faith and without." https://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, with nearly 5,000 hits on it since May of this year: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.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: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:30 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Dave Cornejo; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Done. >Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:52:24 -0600 >To: "Frederick Glaysher" , > "Dave Cornejo" >From: Frank Baker >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV >Cc: "Ron House" , "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , > "John Walker" > >...[snip]... > >Rather, I would suggest that we (1) let the CFV go forward >as it is and (2) post a follow-up note to the effect that > These two passages, 'xx1' and 'xx2', were included > in the CFV through an oversight. 'xx1' was intended > to be deleted and 'xx2' was intended to read 'xx3.' > The proponents apologize for this error. >Unless I hear otherwise, I will post such a comment tomorrow >where the CFV has appeared and to SRB as soon as the CFV >appears there. > >...[snip]... ---------- From: Jafar Agha[SMTP:jfd@bingo.net] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:55 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ In article <74f0am$5rq@news3.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... > >Christian Gruber wrote in message <74eklp$m7e$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >> >>There is no room for personal attack, no matter what the incitement, but >>criticism of one's ideas and opinions freely offered to the public should >>also not be considered attack. Abd'ul-Baha is very clear about such >things. > >Are you familiar with anywhere in the Writings where >Abdu'l-Baha calls someone else's ideas "garbage"? Oh, and I'm sure Abdu'l-Baha would look kindly upon your blanket categorization of Baha'is as master conspirators & censors and dare I even mention when you would freely throw around the labels of "fascist" and "Hitlerite" to people who disagreed with you? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:05 PM To: FG@hotmail.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; smaneck@stetson.edu; rdsteph@ibm.net Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. --Fran Fran Baker wrote: > > Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. > I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. > I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting > from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is > essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. > > --Fran > > PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 > From: "Susan Maneck " > To: rdsteph@ibm.net > CC: Fran Baker > > Dear Ron and Fran, > > I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on > talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you > my rationale because I know this is something you have both > worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at > all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list > promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite > number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other > hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I > did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in > principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going > about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach > and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to > register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. > What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny > against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai > Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of > censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying > to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the > same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any > genuine discussions virtually impossible. > > I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling > off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" > with this jerk. > > Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred > (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do > not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. > > warmest, Susan ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 2:51 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; rick@helix.nih.gov; Frederick Glaysher; srb; Ron House Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT OK, I think we've got it figured out. A recent update to Pegasus email was putting bogus headers into my submitted approved mail.   I fixed it. And the CFV went out a few moments ago AGAIN for the 3rd time.   Rick Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:38:15 -0600 From: Fran Baker To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Copies to: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu, rick@helix.nih.gov, Frederick Glaysher , srb , Ron House Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT > Hi Rick, > > Thank you for your swift attention to this matter. We all really > appreciate it! > > --Fran > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > Fran a copy of this is going to our technical services guy who runs > > the moderation site. It's not good. I'll get rick Troxel on it right > > away > > > > CC to him.> >  > > RIck Boatright > > > > Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:32:24 -0600 > > From: Fran Baker > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > > Copies to: Frederick Glaysher , > > Frank Baker , srb , > > Ron House , John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org, > > fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu > > Subject: SRB posting of CFV still broken > > > > > Rick, > > > > > > The re-post has the same problem as the original post. > > > Technically you have posted it, but it is unrecognizable > > > for what it is. This is a serious matter. Please correct it. > > > > > > Fran Baker > > > > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > >> > > > I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.  > > > > > >  > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up. > >  > > > > > > Rick > > > > > > > > Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 > > > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , > > > > "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > From: Frank Baker > > > > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > > > > > Rick and Frederick, > > > > > > > > > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > > > > > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > > > > > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > > > > > articles listed as > > > > > Subject: unknown > > > > > From: Rick Troxel > > > > > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -- Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > > > > > > > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > > > > > > > > > >Rick > > > > > > > > > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > > > > > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > > > > > >From: Dave Cornejo > > > > > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > > > > > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > > >To: > > > > > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > > > > > >> reference.com.... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > > > > > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > > > > > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > > > > > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Rick Boatright > > > > > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > > > > > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > > > > > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > > > > >> Walker> > > > > > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > > > > > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rick > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > > > > > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > >> > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > >> > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > >> > "John Walker" , > > > > > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > > > > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > > > > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > > > > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > > > > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > > > > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > > > > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > > > > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > > > > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > > > > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > > > > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > > > > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > > > > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > > > > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > > > > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > > > > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > > > > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > > > > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > > > > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > > > > >> > 25 Dec > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > > > > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > > > > >> > news.groups > > > > > >> > alt.religion.bahai > > > > > >> > soc.rights.human > > > > > >> > talk.religion.misc > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > >> > Bill Aten > > > > > >> > Member of UVV > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:12 PM To: FG@hotmail.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; smaneck@stetson.edu; rdsteph@ibm.net Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Hi everyone, I do feel some conflict over forwarding this message to all the proponants, so I'm going to "deal with it by talking about it," as we used to say in the 60s. Susan, I value courtesy, but not above all else. It is kind of unfair of you to say are considering doing something damaging and, to my mind, unprincipled, and ask me to remain calm. OK, I could have just told the others about it rather than quoting you directly, and for that I apologize. Please remember that while Fred has posted things that are upsetting to many people, including you, he is not alone in posting inflamatory messages. I have been truly upset by what I regard as anti-Semitic postings whose authors refuse to seriously consider them to be so because it doesn't fit their ideology or agenda. This includes you and others; it even includes your beloved Baha'u'llah (not that he's been posting lately). Upsetting posts and false or emotional or accusatory posts abound, and not just on unmoderated news groups...it just depends on your point of view, what's at stake for you, what you're comfy with...it's not as black and white as you paint it. Fighting TRB is not doing to make it a better, nicer world, though it might be a more comfy world for you and thus SEEM nicer to you. Remember that this is not a vote about how appealing Fred is, it is about having an unmoderated forum...such a public call for "no" is hardly the only way to register" your disapproval, and you know it. What it is is an EASY way to register your disapproval and at the same time solve the BIGGER problem many have with a free forum that would include dissenting voices. This is how it looks to me. You are free to do whatever you want, of course. You referred in you message to "our" outrage, so I guess you are not alone, but that is to be expected. One problem is that when you have made it clear that there are things you value above the truth and veil your bargain with truth in the exotic concept of hikmat, it makes it hard for us simple, straightforward folks to trust you. I've never said this to you before, but I've thought it often. There's a lot of phony politeness and "love" floating around in the Baha'i world. But since many of my people have gone politely to the slaughter (literally), I can't get too enthusiastic about the politeness per se. I am sorry you are upset. I hope your cooling off period helps. I'm sorry that I probably haven't, but hey, I'm human too. --Fran ---------- From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@stetson.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 4:19 PM To: FG@hotmail.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; smaneck@stetson.edu; rdsteph@ibm.net; Fran Baker Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Dear Fran, I do not object to your fellow proponents knowing of my intentions. I intended to send this message to Ron House, but accidentally posted it to Ronald Stephens instead. What I did not want is for my original message to be forwarded because Fred is known to break all the rules of by posting private messages on his website. But so be it. That will give me all the more reason to urge a "no" vote to his list. Fred Glaysher has his "human rights." My right is to vote no, if he is going to continue to use the kinds of tactics he has been using to establish his list. You talk about my supposed willingness to sacrifice truth for wisdom. God is my witness that if I broke away from certain people is was *primarily* because of the way in which I saw them distorting the truth in order to further their ideological agendas. I had thought previously I was standing up to truth, only to find out just how much of what was going on was in fact sheer slander. Susan ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:55 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai Vote Ack Subj: talk.religion.bahai Vote Ack Date: 12/7/1998 4:16:56 PM Eastern Standard Time From: dave@dogwood.com (Dave Cornejo) To: FG@aol.com This is an automatic message sent to you after your vote has been counted. If this is correct, there is no need for you to reply. If your vote is registered incorrectly then please vote again so we can fix it. You may change your vote by voting again. This is a public vote, and all addresses and votes will be listed in the final voting results. To erase your vote and eliminate your address and vote from the final results listing, vote again and use a CANCEL in place of YES or NO. If this is a multiple group vote all votes must be in the same email message. If you get back multiple acknowledgements with a lot of ABSTAINs on it you should check this. Voter address: FG@aol.com Voter name: Frederick Glaysher YES vote on talk.religion.bahai Thank you for voting. For a copy of the Call For Votes (CFV), reply to me, indicating which vote you want the CFV for (I may be running several). Dave Cornejo ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ya04.mx.aol.com (rly-ya04.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.196]) by air-ya05.mx.aol.com (v53.20) with SMTP; Mon, 07 Dec 1998 16:16:56 -0500 Received: from white.dogwood.com (white.dogwood.com [209.24.60.226]) by rly-ya04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA24192 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dave@localhost) by white.dogwood.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA68647 for FG@aol.com; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:16:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:16:44 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Cornejo Message-Id: <199812072116.NAA68647@white.dogwood.com> To: FG@aol.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai Vote Ack ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:01 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com; boatright@cjnetworks.com; Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker Cc: srb; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.   Thanks for the heads up.  Rick Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , "Frederick Glaysher" From: Frank Baker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , "Frank Baker" , "Fran Baker" , > Rick and Frederick, > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > articles listed as > Subject: unknown > From: Rick Troxel > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > Regards, > -- Frank > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > >Rick > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > >From: Dave Cornejo > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > >To: > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > "Frank Baker" , > > "Fran Baker" , > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > >> reference.com.... > >> > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rick Boatright > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker >> Walker> > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > >> > >> > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > >> > >> Rick > >> > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > >> > "Frank Baker" , > >> > "Fran Baker" , > >> > "John Walker" , > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > >> > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > >> > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > >> > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > >> > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > >> > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > >> > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > >> > 25 Dec > >> > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > >> > news.groups > >> > alt.religion.bahai > >> > soc.rights.human > >> > talk.religion.misc > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Bill Aten > >> > Member of UVV > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:32 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Cc: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; srb; Ron House; John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: SRB posting of CFV still broken Rick, The re-post has the same problem as the original post. Technically you have posted it, but it is unrecognizable for what it is. This is a serious matter. Please correct it. Fran Baker Rick Boatright wrote: > > I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.  >  > Thanks for the heads up. >  > Rick > > Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , > "Frederick Glaysher" > From: Frank Baker > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > "Frank Baker" , > "Fran Baker" , > > > Rick and Frederick, > > > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > > articles listed as > > Subject: unknown > > From: Rick Troxel > > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > > > Regards, > > -- Frank > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > > > >Rick > > > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > > >From: Dave Cornejo > > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > >To: > > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > "Fran Baker" , > > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > > >> reference.com.... > > >> > > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Rick Boatright > > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > >> Walker> > > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > >> > > >> > > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > >> > > >> Rick > > >> > > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >> > > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > >> > "Frank Baker" , > > >> > "Fran Baker" , > > >> > "John Walker" , > > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > >> > > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > >> > > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > > >> > > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > >> > > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > >> > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > >> > > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > >> > 25 Dec > > >> > > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > >> > news.groups > > >> > alt.religion.bahai > > >> > soc.rights.human > > >> > talk.religion.misc > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Bill Aten > > >> > Member of UVV > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:51 PM To: FG@hotmail.com; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; smanek@stetson.edu; rdsteph@ibm.net Subject: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] <> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. --Fran PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 9:50 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Fred, Remember that she hasn't actually done anything yet. I think we should give her a chance to back down before doing much about it. --Fran ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 2:16 PM To: rick@helix.nih.gov; Fran Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; srb; Ron House Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT Fran a copy of this is going to our technical services guy who runs the moderation site. It's not good. I'll get rick Troxel on it right away CC to him.  RIck Boatright Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:32:24 -0600 From: Fran Baker To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Copies to: Frederick Glaysher , Frank Baker , srb , Ron House , John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org, fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: SRB posting of CFV still broken > Rick, > > The re-post has the same problem as the original post. > Technically you have posted it, but it is unrecognizable > for what it is. This is a serious matter. Please correct it. > > Fran Baker > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.  > >  > > Thanks for the heads up.> >  > > Rick > > > > Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , > > "Frederick Glaysher" > > From: Frank Baker > > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > "Frank Baker" , > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > Rick and Frederick, > > > > > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > > > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > > > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > > > articles listed as > > > Subject: unknown > > > From: Rick Troxel > > > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- Frank > > > > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > > > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > > > > > >Rick > > > > > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > > > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > > > >From: Dave Cornejo > > > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > > > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > >To: > > > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > > > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > > > >> reference.com.... > > > >> > > > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > > > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > > > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > > > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Rick Boatright > > > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > > > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > > > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > > >> Walker> > > > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > > > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > > >> > > > >> Rick > > > >> > > > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > > > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > >> > "Frank Baker" , > > > >> > "Fran Baker" , > > > >> > "John Walker" , > > > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > > >> > > > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > > >> > > > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > >> > > > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > > >> > > > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > > >> > > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > > >> > > > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > > >> > 25 Dec > > > >> > > > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > > >> > news.groups > > > >> > alt.religion.bahai > > > >> > soc.rights.human > > > >> > talk.religion.misc > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Bill Aten > > > >> > Member of UVV > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 2:38 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; rick@helix.nih.gov; Frederick Glaysher; srb; Ron House Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT Hi Rick, Thank you for your swift attention to this matter. We all really appreciate it! --Fran Rick Boatright wrote: > > Fran a copy of this is going to our technical services guy who runs > the moderation site. It's not good. I'll get rick Troxel on it right > away > > CC to him. >  > RIck Boatright > > Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:32:24 -0600 > From: Fran Baker > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Copies to: Frederick Glaysher , > Frank Baker , srb , > Ron House , John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org, > fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu > Subject: SRB posting of CFV still broken > > > Rick, > > > > The re-post has the same problem as the original post. > > Technically you have posted it, but it is unrecognizable > > for what it is. This is a serious matter. Please correct it. > > > > Fran Baker > > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.  > > > >  > > > > Thanks for the heads up.> >  > > > > Rick > > > > > > Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 > > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , > > > "Frederick Glaysher" > > > From: Frank Baker > > > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > > > Rick and Frederick, > > > > > > > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > > > > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > > > > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > > > > articles listed as > > > > Subject: unknown > > > > From: Rick Troxel > > > > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > > > > > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > > > > > > > >Rick > > > > > > > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > > > > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > > > > >From: Dave Cornejo > > > > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > > > > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > >To: > > > > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > > > > > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > > > > >> reference.com.... > > > > >> > > > > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > > > > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > > > > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > > > > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Rick Boatright > > > > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > > > > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > > > > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > > > >> Walker> > > > > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > > > > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > > > >> > > > > >> Rick > > > > >> > > > > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > > > > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > >> > "Frank Baker" , > > > > >> > "Fran Baker" , > > > > >> > "John Walker" , > > > > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > > > >> > > > > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > > > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > > > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > > > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > > > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > > > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > > > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > > > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > > > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > > > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > > > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > > > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > > > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > > > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > > > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > > > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > > > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > > > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > > > >> > > > > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > > > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > > > >> > 25 Dec > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > > > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > > > >> > news.groups > > > > >> > alt.religion.bahai > > > > >> > soc.rights.human > > > > >> > talk.religion.misc > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Bill Aten > > > > >> > Member of UVV > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:17 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; rick@helix.nih.gov; Frederick Glaysher; srb; Ron House Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT Terrific! Rick, if the vote succeeds, you will recive coupons good for three free let-it-all-hang-out vents on the subject of your choice on TRB! o: <; Thanks again, Fran Rick Boatright wrote: > > OK, I think we've got it figured out. A recent update to Pegasus email was > putting bogus headers into my submitted approved mail.  >  > I fixed it. And the CFV went out a few moments ago AGAIN for the > 3rd time.  >  > Rick > > Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:38:15 -0600 > From: Fran Baker > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > Copies to: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu, rick@helix.nih.gov, > Frederick Glaysher , srb , > Ron House > Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT > > > Hi Rick, > > > > Thank you for your swift attention to this matter. We all really > > appreciate it! > > > > --Fran > > > > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > Fran a copy of this is going to our technical services guy who runs > > > the moderation site. It's not good. I'll get rick Troxel on it right > > > away > > > > > > CC to him.> >  > > > > RIck Boatright > > > > > > Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:32:24 -0600 > > > From: Fran Baker > > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com > > > Copies to: Frederick Glaysher , > > > Frank Baker , srb , > > > Ron House , John.Walker@bounty.bcca.org, > > > fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu > > > Subject: SRB posting of CFV still broken > > > > > > > Rick, > > > > > > > > The re-post has the same problem as the original post. > > > > Technically you have posted it, but it is unrecognizable > > > > for what it is. This is a serious matter. Please correct it. > > > > > > > > Fran Baker > > > > > > > > Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > >> > > > I have re-posted to try to get a good copy out.  > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up. > > >  > > > > > > > > > Rick > > > > > > > > > > Date sent: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:32:03 -0600 > > > > > To: boatright@cjnetworks.com, , > > > > > "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > > From: Frank Baker > > > > > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > > > > > > > Rick and Frederick, > > > > > > > > > > > > I just checked SRB. From what I see, I'd guess that there is some sort > > > > > > of technical problem somewhere in the SRB posting-moderation-transmission > > > > > > process. The CFV shows up in my view of SRB, but it is one of several > > > > > > articles listed as > > > > > > Subject: unknown > > > > > > From: Rick Troxel > > > > > > The timestamp on the CFV article is 12/4/98 4:44 PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 12/6/98 -0600, Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > > >Well Frederick, I _sent_ it... on 4 DEC at 16:45. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I will re-submit in 24 hours if it STILL isn't on Deja News. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Rick > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Approved: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright) > > > > > > >Date sent: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:59:17 -0500 (EST) > > > > > > >From: Dave Cornejo > > > > > > >Send reply to: vote@dogwood.com > > > > > > >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > > > >To: > > > > > > >Copies to: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > > > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > > > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > > >Date sent: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 08:17:53 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It hasn't made it to my server nor to dejanews.com, AOL, or > > > > > > >> reference.com.... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > > > > > > >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > > > > > > >> ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > > > > > > >> or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: Rick Boatright > > > > > > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > > > > > > >> Cc: srb ; Ron House ; Frank Baker > > > > > > >> ; Fran Baker ; John Walker > > > > > >> Walker> > > > > > > >> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 1:32 AM > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I ALREADY POSTED CFV 1 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Rick > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 5 Dec 98 at 8:37, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > > > > > >> > To: "Bill Aten" > > > > > > >> > Cc: "srb" , "Ron House" , > > > > > > >> > "Frank Baker" , > > > > > > >> > "Fran Baker" , > > > > > > >> > "John Walker" , > > > > > > >> > "Dave Cornejo" > > > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai - correcting the CFV > > > > > > >> > Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 08:37:31 -0500 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The UVV Daily has an error in it if I'm reading it > > > > > > >> > correctly. The RFD called for soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > >> > to receive a copy of the CFV too. Since we > > > > > > >> > have this little glitch with my not realizing I should > > > > > > >> > have deleted the two passages everyone agreed > > > > > > >> > to drop maybe we could just remove them, Dave, from > > > > > > >> > the copy you send in to soc.religion.bahai. They're the > > > > > > >> > only ones likely to care about those passages anyway > > > > > > >> > though neither they nor anyone else has obejcted during > > > > > > >> > the last 24 hours. It might be a good way to correct the > > > > > > >> > situation. Soc.religion.bahai really won't want to post > > > > > > >> > the CFV with the sentence some judged as "negative" > > > > > > >> > about positing rejected srb messages to talk.religion.bahai. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The 2nd CFV to all groups could then follow the 1st one > > > > > > >> > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I would go with either version soc.religion.bahai would be > > > > > > >> > willing to post: either with both passages in or both out. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > My apologies to everyone for goofing this up. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > > > > > > >> > Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > >> > Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, > > > > > > >> > news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker > > > > > > >> > dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Subject: talk.religion.bahai > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > PROPOSAL CFV #1 CFV #2 Vote > > > > > > >> > Closes talk.religion.bahai 4 Dec -- > > > > > > >> > 25 Dec > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Votetaker: Dave Cornejo > > > > > > >> > CFV posted in: news.announce.newgroups > > > > > > >> > news.groups > > > > > > >> > alt.religion.bahai > > > > > > >> > soc.rights.human > > > > > > >> > talk.religion.misc > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > >> > Bill Aten > > > > > > >> > Member of UVV > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:27 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Dave, One of the proponents has received the enclosed threat to call for a NO vote on talk.religion.bahai. I'd appreciate it if you'd advise us on what to do or not to do about it. Thanks. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:36 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; srb; rick@helix.nih.gov; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT Rick, Thanks for correcting the CFV problem and posting it correctly on srb. I also thank you for letting Frank post a message outlining what was my error regarding the couple of changes we had all wanted and agreed on and for allowing it to go forward as is. Alas, we're all human and can slip up.... Thanks again. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Fran Baker Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; rick@helix.nih.gov ; Frederick Glaysher ; srb ; Ron House Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: Re: SRB posting of CFV still broken URGENT >OK, I think we've got it figured out. A recent update to Pegasus email was >putting bogus headers into my submitted approved mail.  > >I fixed it. And the CFV went out a few moments ago AGAIN for the >3rd time.  > >Rick ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:42 PM To: David Lawrence Cc: Dave Cornejo; Bill Aten Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] David and Bill, It occurs to me I should perhaps ask your advice too, especially since this was done during the first vote with such devastating impact: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:27 PM Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Dave, > >One of the proponents has received the enclosed threat to >call for a NO vote on talk.religion.bahai. I'd appreciate it if >you'd advise us on what to do or not to do about it. > >Thanks. > >Fred > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fran Baker >To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu >; house@usq.edu.au ; >johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; >fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu >; rdsteph@ibm.net >Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM >Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >>Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >>--Fran >> >>Fran Baker wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >>> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >>> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >>> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >>> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >>> >>> --Fran >>> >>> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >>> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >>> From: "Susan Maneck " >>> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >>> CC: Fran Baker >>> >>> Dear Ron and Fran, >>> >>> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >>> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >>> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >>> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >>> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >>> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >>> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >>> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >>> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >>> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >>> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >>> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >>> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >>> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >>> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >>> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >>> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >>> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >>> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >>> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >>> >>> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >>> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >>> with this jerk. >>> >>> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >>> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >>> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >>> >>> warmest, Susan > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:50 PM To: Richard Hollinger Subject: Re: CFV for talk.religion.bahai on H-Bahai -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hollinger To: Vote Here Cc: FG@hotmail.com ; lbhollin@ust.hk Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:47 PM Subject: CFV for talk.religion.bahai on H-Bahai >Dear Proponents of TRB, > >I have discussed the matter with the other moderators of H-Bahai, and the >consensus is that the CFV is off-topic for this list. However, since it >is likely to be of some interest to a number of H-Bahai subscribers, we >can post a short notice with a url or email address where those interested >can get further information. > >Richard Hollinger Let me suggest a draft then titled Subject: Pointer CFV - talk.religion.bahai The Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot or CFV is on soc.rights.human, news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, and soc.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker Dave Cornejo at dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." Further information may also be found https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Hope this acceptable. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 7:12 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] From smaneck@stetson.edu Mon Dec 7 15:30:55 1998 From: "Susan Maneck " To: FG@hotmail.com, fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu, house@usq.edu.au, johnwalker@ozemail.com.au, fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu, smaneck@stetson.edu, rdsteph@ibm.net, Fran Baker Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:19:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Dear Fran, >...original message to be forwarded because Fred is known to break >all the rules of by posting private messages on his website. But so >be it. That will give me all the more reason to urge a "no" vote to >his list. How is something Fred does a reason to vote no for TRB? It is not HIS list or any other one person's, and you know that very well. Many very sedate people are for it. Consider the list of proponents, for example. I hope I am wrong, but I think a willingness to equate TRB with one person you don't like is a convenient excuse for opposing and campaigning against the group itself. Just like the CB fear is an excuse. I know I am being a little harsh here, but I can't understand why you are so unwilling to see the good in this proposal. --Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 7:33 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Sorry I forgot a few minutes ago to cc all of you with this one too. I really think we have to ask their advice. It's serious given what's happened in the past and what use the BCCA mailing lists have been used for in the past. -----Original Message----- From: FG To: David Lawrence Cc: Dave Cornejo ; Bill Aten Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:42 PM Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >David and Bill, > >It occurs to me I should perhaps ask your advice too, especially >since this was done during the first vote with such devastating >impact: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Dave Cornejo >Cc: Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran >Baker ; John Walker >Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 6:27 PM >Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >>Dave, >> >>One of the proponents has received the enclosed threat to >>call for a NO vote on talk.religion.bahai. I'd appreciate it if >>you'd advise us on what to do or not to do about it. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Fred >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Fran Baker >>To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu >>; house@usq.edu.au ; >>johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; >>fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu >>; rdsteph@ibm.net >>Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM >>Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >> >> >>>Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >>>--Fran >>> >>>Fran Baker wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >>>> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >>>> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >>>> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >>>> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >>>> >>>> --Fran >>>> >>>> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >>>> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >>>> From: "Susan Maneck " >>>> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >>>> CC: Fran Baker >>>> >>>> Dear Ron and Fran, >>>> >>>> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >>>> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >>>> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >>>> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >>>> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >>>> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >>>> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >>>> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >>>> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >>>> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >>>> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >>>> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >>>> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >>>> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >>>> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >>>> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >>>> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >>>> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >>>> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >>>> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >>>> >>>> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >>>> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >>>> with this jerk. >>>> >>>> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >>>> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >>>> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >>>> >>>> warmest, Susan >> > ---------- From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@stetson.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 8:56 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu; Fran Baker Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Dear Fran, You've probably forced my hand in opposing TRB by forwarding everything to Fred. He will blast it all over creation and I will thereby find myself committed to opposing this list. I was hoping to discuss it with you and Ron House privately first, and thereby have the opportunity to reconsider. Knowing Fred that is not likely to be possible now. > How is something Fred does a reason to vote no for TRB? Fred is the one who originated the idea of TRB. Fred is the one who has been pushing it for your years. Fred is the one who has engaged in a campaign of the disinformation and slander in order to get TRB. If others who support it, do not approve of his methods they have a responsibility to speak out against them. I hope I am wrong, but I think a willingness to equate TRB with > one person you don't like is a convenient excuse for opposing and > campaigning against the group itself. Were this the case I would not have tried to discuss this privately with you and Ron House first. Before I could ignore what Fred was doing because I didn't go anywhere near a.r.b.., because he was not someone I cared to have anything to do with. That is why I would not agree to your earlier request that I come out in support of it. But now, whether I like it or not, his slander, and lies are constantly in my face on AOL. And all this is done in the name of TRB. If you don't want me to campaign for a "no" vote I suggest you persuade Fred to stop using these tactics to get it approved. There should be one reason and one reason alone for TRB, that is that a sufficient number of people choose to participate in an unmoderated newsgroup. Fred doesn't have to prove there is anything wrong with SRB to get his newsgroup. He doesn't have to slander the Institutions to get his newsgroup. He doesn't have to disrupt the AOL Message Board, slandering me to the AOL management, or falsely accuse me of censoring Baha'i Studies to get his newsgroup If those are the tactics he is going to use to get it, a newsgroup then to not vote against this newsgroup is to approve of those tactics. > I know I am being a little harsh here, but I can't understand > why you are so unwilling to see the good in this proposal. It can only be as good as the motives of those who support it and the tactics they use to achieve their goals. I'm not against the proposal, I'm against the means of achieving it. Stop those methods from being used and I will not oppose the list. Susan > > --Fran > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 9:56 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >From: "Susan Maneck " >To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu, FG@hotmail.com, fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu, >fran@crhc.uiuc.edu, house@usq.edu.au, johnwalker@ozemail.com.au, >smaneck@stetson.edu, fran@crhc.uiuc.edu (Fran Baker) >Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:56:03 -0500 > >Dear Fran, > >You've probably forced my hand in opposing TRB by forwarding everything >to Fred. That is totally bogus! --Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 10:28 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >It can only be as good as the motives of those who support it and >the tactics they use to achieve their goals. I'm not against the >proposal, I'm against the means of achieving it. Stop those >methods from being used and I will not oppose the list. Susan, The motives of those who support TRB are sincere and heartfelt. The means of achieving it vary, and the actions of a tiny minority bother you a lot. (Note that the same could be said of a lot of causes.) I personally am insulted by your statement above because it impugns or marginalizes the contributions made by me, my husband, Ron House, and others. I also take it as nothing short of a threat that if we don't muzzle Fred, you will oppose the list. Well, we have all asked Fred to try to keep a low profile, but none of us has seen fit to treat him as anything but an equal who has the right to make his own decisions and take their consequences, like any other adult and moral agent. Striving to treat each person as an end in himself or herself and not as a means to some other end, however fine, is at the heart of ethics. Note, by the way, that as far as I know, Fred has not published or posted you letter. Personally, I think a no campaign will not reflect well on you or the Faith unless you have something more than Fred's postings (which are his alone) to back it up. --Fran ---------- From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@stetson.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:10 AM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu; Fran Baker Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > Well, we have > all asked Fred to try to keep a low profile, but none > of us has seen fit to treat him as anything but an equal > who has the right to make his own decisions and take their > consequences, like any other adult and moral agent. Well, the consequences of Fred's tactics are to turn people against his proposed list. Susan > ---------- From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@stetson.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:10 AM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; smaneck@stetson.edu; Fran Baker Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > >You've probably forced my hand in opposing TRB by forwarding everything > >to Fred. > > That is totally bogus! Well, we'll see what Fred does. Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:53 AM To: Ron House Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Where's Walker? Nobody's answered my email enquiring about why messages to him are bouncing.... Dave Cornejo's email will surely be bouncing too.... It might me wise to pass him another address to use, if nothing else. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:55 AM To: WNThompson@aol.com Subject: Re: I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 I have not read your message. Please post your opinions online in public. Do not email me directly. Thank you. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: WNThompson@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 5:38 PM Subject: Re: I would post on srb but they have been censoring me since May 1998 >Dear Frederick, > >The following question is sincere, at least to my mind. Apparently you are a >Baha'i and believe in Baha'u'llah. The number is so small and society is so >sick. Why use your energy to turn on the believers in Baha'u'llah even if >someone has wounded you. That's just a test. To read the writings, know the >station of the Cause, and then insist on finding some mode for infighting is >to totally misunderstand what life if given to us for. So the question? I >guess its why twist your time and energy in such a contrary self-consuming >direction? > >How do you feel when you are sitting at your keyboard in this and people >around you don't even know about Baha'u'llah? > >I hope you'll prefer hit the big world where you're needed. >Very concerned 'cause you matter, >Bill ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:56 AM To: Rafaj Subject: Re: Question for Frederick Glaysher... Please do not email me directly. Post your opinions online in public. -----Original Message----- From: Rafaj Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 6:56 PM Subject: Re: Question for Frederick Glaysher... >In article <74dvii$evb@news1.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... >> >> >>"The Bahai Technique": >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm > >Thank you for the pointer... I note, however, it does not seem to address the >question? Maybe I missed it. > >If it's untrue, please say so. I'm sure clarifying this publicly would put to >rest any hints of doubt. > >rafaj > >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >>ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >>or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the trb CFV ballot. >> >> >> >>rafaj wrote in message <41ha2.134$aj7.216@news.rdc1.az.home.com>... >>>Hello, Fred. >>> >>>A few weeks ago, somebody told me you had withdrawn (administratively) from >>the >>>Baha'i Faith. He said this was to avoid possible "sanctions". >>> >>>Rather than implicitly believing hearsay, however, I thought I'd ask you >>>directly. Is this pure bunk? If not, what's the story? (If you don't mind >>>discussing it, that is) >>> >>>rafaj >>> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:57 AM To: Jafar Agha Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ Please do not email me directly. Post your opinions online in public. -----Original Message----- From: Jafar Agha Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:53 AM Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >In article <74f0am$5rq@news3.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... >> >>Christian Gruber wrote in message <74eklp$m7e$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>... >>> >>>There is no room for personal attack, no matter what the incitement, but >>>criticism of one's ideas and opinions freely offered to the public should >>>also not be considered attack. Abd'ul-Baha is very clear about such >>things. >> >>Are you familiar with anywhere in the Writings where >>Abdu'l-Baha calls someone else's ideas "garbage"? > >Oh, and I'm sure Abdu'l-Baha would look kindly upon your blanket categorization > of Baha'is as master conspirators & censors and dare I even mention when you >would freely throw around the labels of "fascist" and "Hitlerite" to people who >disagreed with you? > >Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:02 AM To: Fran Baker; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] It's now in the hands of Usenet and UVV authorities. They shall decide how to procede. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; FG@hotmail.com ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > >Fred, > >Remember that she hasn't actually done anything yet. >I think we should give her a chance to back down >before doing much about it. > >--Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:14 AM To: Michael McKenny Cc: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] FYI -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:27 AM To: Roger Reini Subject: Re: Another Massive NO VOTE? Roger Reini wrote in message <366bd055.23137340@news.newsguy.com>... >On 6 Dec 1998 15:46:08 GMT, FG@aol.com (Fglaysher) wrote: > >>Some Bahais appear to be attacking the latest, 3rd proposal >>for talk.religion.bahai in ways similar to the past. May I ask >>those Bahais who have stated that they support the technical, >>neutral RFD and CFV to please speak and defend it? > >I have not seen any such attacks on this newsgroup or on any other >which I follow. Roger, we know the history and present reality are more complicated.... > >IMHO, bringing up this topic now, during the vote, may lead to the >opposite result of what you intended. Alas, ignoring events that are taking place has not proven beneficial to civilization in the past.... The arguments have been heard >before, on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, not by newcomers, and there are many who have not heard of the nature of Usenet interest polling but think it's like voting yes or no in a normal democratic election whereas a no here would actually be voting to deprive others of their right to free speech and conscience. You are right we have been through this before, during the second interest poll, an entire YEAR ago when Bahais seemed to have shown they understood them by restraining themselves from the kind of massive NO vote that took place during the first poll in February of 1997. This time, these issues have not been adequately discussed. It would be a pity to see uninformed newcomers commit the same mistake of so many during the first poll. It would also not reflect well once again on the Bahai Faith. They are quite controversial, as we >have seen. The continuing rehashing of the topics (I haven't seen >anything significantly new added recently) may lead to individuals >voting against the proposal where they might otherwise voted in favor >or at least abstained. Roger, I'll send you a private email along these lines in a moment. You and I are now perhaps the only two who have been following here since pretty much the beginning.... > >Since little if anything new is being added, I propose backing off and >letting the vote take its course. I have already voted, in fact. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Another Massive NO VOTE? Roger Reini wrote in message <366bd055.23137340@news.newsguy.com>... >On 6 Dec 1998 15:46:08 GMT, FG@aol.com (Fglaysher) wrote: > >>Some Bahais appear to be attacking the latest, 3rd proposal >>for talk.religion.bahai in ways similar to the past. May I ask >>those Bahais who have stated that they support the technical, >>neutral RFD and CFV to please speak and defend it? > >I have not seen any such attacks on this newsgroup or on any other >which I follow. Roger, we know the history and present reality are more complicated.... > >IMHO, bringing up this topic now, during the vote, may lead to the >opposite result of what you intended. Alas, ignoring events that are taking place has not proven beneficial to civilization in the past.... The arguments have been heard >before, on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, not by newcomers, and there are many who have not heard of the nature of Usenet interest polling but think it's like voting yes or no in a normal democratic election whereas a no here would actually be voting to deprive others of their right to free speech and conscience. You are right we have been through this before, during the second interest poll, an entire YEAR ago when Bahais seemed to have shown they understood them by restraining themselves from the kind of massive NO vote that took place during the first poll in February of 1997. This time, these issues have not been adequately discussed. It would be a pity to see uninformed newcomers commit the same mistake of so many during the first poll. It would also not reflect well once again on the Bahai Faith. They are quite controversial, as we >have seen. The continuing rehashing of the topics (I haven't seen >anything significantly new added recently) may lead to individuals >voting against the proposal where they might otherwise voted in favor >or at least abstained. Roger, I'll send you a private email along these lines in a moment. You and I are now perhaps the only two who have been following here since pretty much the beginning.... > >Since little if anything new is being added, I propose backing off and >letting the vote take its course. I have already voted, in fact. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:28 AM To: Roger Reini Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] FYI Roger, As you will see, there newcomers who still don't get it, as they say.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:55 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Russ Allbery; Rebecca G. McQuitty; Kathy Pascoe; Joe Bernstein; Guy Macon; Jonathan Grobe; Ginger Glaser; Emma Pease; D E Siegel; Chris Stone Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Dave, While you and David Lawrence are consulting on the forwarded copy of the Bahai threat to call for another massive NO vote on talk.religion.bahai, I thought it would be helpful to cc Usenent and news.groups people who have been involved often or at one point in the proposal in the past. It seems to me their consultation and perspectives might be helpful too. I have not posted this in public. This threat might be compared to the actual successful call for NO votes on three private Bahai-only mailing lists during the first poll: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Waiting to hear your advice on how to procede, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:59 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Russ Allbery ; Rebecca G. McQuitty ; Kathy Pascoe ; Joe Bernstein ; Guy Macon ; Jonathan Grobe ; Ginger Glaser ; Emma Pease ; D E Siegel ; Chris Stone Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:55 AM Subject: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Dave, > >While you and David Lawrence are consulting on the >forwarded copy of the Bahai threat to call for another >massive NO vote on talk.religion.bahai, I thought it >would be helpful to cc Usenent and news.groups >people who have been involved often or at one point >in the proposal in the past. It seems to me their >consultation and perspectives might be helpful too. > >I have not posted this in public. > >This threat might be compared to the actual successful call for >NO votes on three private Bahai-only mailing lists during the >first poll: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm > >Waiting to hear your advice on how to procede, > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fran Baker >To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu >; house@usq.edu.au ; >johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; >fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu >; rdsteph@ibm.net >Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM >Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >>Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >>--Fran >> >>Fran Baker wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >>> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >>> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >>> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >>> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >>> >>> --Fran >>> >>> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >>> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >>> From: "Susan Maneck " >>> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >>> CC: Fran Baker >>> >>> Dear Ron and Fran, >>> >>> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >>> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >>> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >>> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >>> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >>> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >>> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >>> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >>> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >>> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >>> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >>> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >>> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >>> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >>> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >>> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >>> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >>> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >>> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >>> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >>> >>> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >>> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >>> with this jerk. >>> >>> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >>> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >>> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >>> >>> warmest, Susan > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 11:33 AM To: Susan Maneck Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Susan Maneck wrote: > > > >You've probably forced my hand in opposing TRB by forwarding everything > > >to Fred. > > > > That is totally bogus! > > Well, we'll see what Fred does. > > Susan My point is only that nothing I do or Fred does "forces" you to do anything. Like the rest of us, you always have a choice as to how you behave. --Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 11:43 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Fred, I doubt they'll do anything if she doesn't. Do you have any indication as to their view? ==Fran Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > It's now in the hands of Usenet and UVV authorities. > They shall decide how to procede. > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fran Baker > To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; FG@hotmail.com > ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; > house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au > > Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > > > >Fred, > > > >Remember that she hasn't actually done anything yet. > >I think we should give her a chance to back down > >before doing much about it. > > > >--Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:11 PM To: Susan Maneck Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Susan Maneck wrote: > > > Well, we have > > all asked Fred to try to keep a low profile, but none > > of us has seen fit to treat him as anything but an equal > > who has the right to make his own decisions and take their > > consequences, like any other adult and moral agent. > > Well, the consequences of Fred's tactics are to turn people against > his proposed list. > > Susan > > That may well be. My guess is that some will turn against, some will turn toward, and some will be unaffected because they see it as irrelevant. --Fran ---------- From: Joe Bernstein[SMTP:josephb@tezcat.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:27 PM To: Kathy Pascoe Cc: FG@hotmail.com; dave@dogwood.com; rra@stanford.edu; mcq@wco.com; josephb@tezcat.com; guymacon@deltanet.com; grobe@worf.netins.net; gglaser@minn.net; emma@csli.Stanford.EDU; desiegel@aol.com; cstone@matrix.ru Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Apologies for intruding into everyone's inboxes this way, but I thought it worth contributing what little I do know. I should note first that I have already voted YES on trb and have not yet seen reason to cancel that vote, although the temptation is there. (I *fully* agree with most of what Ms. Pascoe wrote in the message I'm quoting here, Mr. Glaysher. Be aware that it is increasingly possible that I will cancel my vote; just haven't *yet* seen reason to.) > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > While you and David Lawrence are consulting on the > > forwarded copy of the Bahai threat to call for another > > massive NO vote on talk.religion.bahai, > > Please do not term one woman's opinion that she has not yet acted on as > a group threat. The difficulty is that Susan Maneck is an influential woman. Note that her note was not that she was thinking of *voting* NO. (I got two such notes during the vote on soc.history.early-modern, point of fact.) But of *calling* for a NO vote. In addition, she herself cites a number of locations where she is evidently to be heard in the event of such a call. I know Susan Maneck from a period of a couple of months in which I was subscribed to the ISLAM-L mailing list on the history (among other things) of Islam. The original moderator of that list had to retire, and called for volunteers. She did volunteer but noted that she was a Baha'i and that this might be an issue for some subscribers, at which point she was reassured by acclamation. To the time I left the list she seemed a perfectly reasonable moderator. It is precisely this experience of her as a reasonable woman respected by a wide range of people that leads me to believe that her calling for a NO vote might be widely heeded. Did any of y'all know about ISLAM-L? I don't know what would happen if she posted on there, say, to urge a NO vote. From what I know of her behaviour she would probably do no such thing, out of respect for the propriety of mailing lists. But on lists where such a call would be on-topic, I think she has to be taken seriously. > > I have not posted this in public. > > That's a fine piece of hairsplitting, Fred, since you started an > inflammatory thread in arb about potential threats, even if you > did not mention Susan Maneck directly. Haven't seen the thread, but I sorta thought Fred Glaysher posting inflammatory threads in arb about Bahai threats was par for the course, alas. Do you mean he came so close to naming her that not posting the actual e-mail was trivial? In general, it is reprehensible to post private e-mail (and I am *very* unhappy about having read this one) and it is reasonable for Mr. Glaysher to note that he hasn't done that. > You want advice: stop promoting your website. Take the annotated > NO lists off the site. Leave Susan Maneck alone. Offer a blanket > apology in arb to those you may have offended, and leave people in > peace to contemplate their vote. I agree with everything here, in particular, except the third sentence. I'm honestly unsure what to do about Susan Maneck. Given that I was a new subscriber, I didn't participate (as best I recall) in the debate when she assumed leadership of ISLAM-L, so basically, she doesn't know me from Adam. Given this and given the fact that I should not have seen her e-mail in the first place, at this point I don't intend to write her urging her not to make this call. But I really wish I could see my way clear to doing so. I would hate to see her succeed in torpedoing the group (independently of whether Mr. Glaysher succeeds in the same aim); I would hate to see her name muddied by such a mistake, as well, because she is a valuable contributor to the nets. Anyone who *does* feel free to write to her under these circumstances is welcome to quote me from this message, although please note that this does *not* constitute permission to quote Ms. Pascoe. Separately, I cannot stress this strongly enough: you do *not* have permission to forward to any person or list by e-mail, at this time, my document "Canonical Reasons for Voting". I no longer am willing to attach my name to that document, and I am not persuaded that mailing it to people is a wise approach in any event. Joe Bernstein ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:24 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Why can't you....? Subject: Re: Why can't you....? Date: 12/9/1998 9:15 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981209091523.05401.00000013@ng34.aol.com> >I have known the House to answer me in four days >and I have known them to take six months. The one that took six months was >well worth waiting for and the one that took four days would have caused me a >nervous break down if I'd had to wait any longer! >warmest, Susan The logic the House used for taking for taking a year to answer my appeal was that they felt I would have come to my senses in all that time. I did. In my profound disillusionment (ridding myself of illusions) at their insensitivity--to a problem they helped create-- I began the long process of leaving the Faith. Of course, none of this is really important to anyone unless it is your faith being crushed. I really believe, Susan, that if you had been put into my set of circumstances and had became too disgusted to continue making appeals--you would have lost your faith too. The fact is Bahais leave the Faith quietly every year. They're typically called "inactive." For all you Bahais out there with your heads blistfully in the sand--when not crying "foul" to what I'm saying: Do your homework and quit chiming in with the mob mentality. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:34 PM To: dave@dogwood.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Voting inquiry Dave, Understood. Thanks. Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 3:45 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Frederick Glaysher; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Voting inquiry Hi Dave, Chris Manvell just asked whether voting is going on OK. He voted several days ago (12/5) and hasn't received an ack. Everything OK? Fran ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 4:49 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: dave@dogwood.com; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: Voting inquiry Fran Baker wrote: > Chris Manvell just asked whether voting is going on OK. He voted > several days ago (12/5) and hasn't received an ack. Everything OK? If people have questions, have them email me. I only accept questions about a specific vote from the email address it was sent from, and I will remove any CC's from it also. The vote counting is proceeding, but I don't run the queue necessarily every day until the last few days, so it may take 2-3 days to get an ack from me. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:24 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Why can't you....? Subject: Re: Why can't you....? Date: 12/9/1998 9:15 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981209091523.05401.00000013@ng34.aol.com> >I have known the House to answer me in four days >and I have known them to take six months. The one that took six months was >well worth waiting for and the one that took four days would have caused me a >nervous break down if I'd had to wait any longer! >warmest, Susan The logic the House used for taking for taking a year to answer my appeal was that they felt I would have come to my senses in all that time. I did. In my profound disillusionment (ridding myself of illusions) at their insensitivity--to a problem they helped create-- I began the long process of leaving the Faith. Of course, none of this is really important to anyone unless it is your faith being crushed. I really believe, Susan, that if you had been put into my set of circumstances and had became too disgusted to continue making appeals--you would have lost your faith too. The fact is Bahais leave the Faith quietly every year. They're typically called "inactive." For all you Bahais out there with your heads blistfully in the sand--when not crying "foul" to what I'm saying: Do your homework and quit chiming in with the mob mentality. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:38 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Greetings, Frederick. This reasoning reminds me of our unlamented former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He's the guy who "achieved" a 15 per cent approval rating for his final 2 years in office. Susan argues, "Fred's badmouthing us and saying we're into censor- ship, so let's censor TRB." Mr. Mulroney argued, "Hey, they're saying I was a money grubbing crook while I was in office, so I'm suing for 5 million dollars." I'll try to say more within the next several days. Personally, I've moved so far from the Baha'i Faith that it all seems like a dream. I do hope that all goes well for you, and whatever specifically happens, yet the future will treat you and yours with great kindness. Be ever Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:40 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Voting inquiry Any more threats from Susan? It might be a good idea if someone could watch the BCCA mailing lists. They're what was used during the 1st vote.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Frederick Glaysher ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 3:42 PM Subject: Voting inquiry >Hi Dave, > >Chris Manvell just asked whether voting is going on OK. He voted >several days ago (12/5) and hasn't received an ack. Everything OK? > >Fran > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:51 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai If you haven't seen the CFV in soc.culture.iranian, it's there. The fanatics now can blame their massive NO vote on them.... How convenient.... ----Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai >It has been brought to my attention that someone has improperly posted a >copy of the CFV to soc.culture.iranian. Although it was listed in two past >polls on the RFD, it was not this time. The CFV first appeared on >soc.religion.bahai with the subject line "unknown" by accident which was >corrected by the moderators. > >I assume it should just be ignored, though advice would be appreciated. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 12:01 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Manic's attack Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > She's obviously baiting me. I'd appreciate someone > else answering her. The illustrious Bahai scholar is > below contempt as far as I'm concerned, let alone > comment..... Dear Fred, I'm having an exchange with Susan privately, so is Frank. Don't let her get your goat. --Fran > > -----Original Message----- > From: Smaneck > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 10:51 PM > Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ > > >Christian writes: > > > >>Fred, you and I and Susan and all of us should all shut up about throwing > >>stones and glass houses and flame wars. > > > >Your point is well taken Christian, but I really think "garbage" is a mild > way > >to refer to slander. > > > >warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:49 AM To: Kavosh Soltani Subject: Re: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai I just want to say I really agree with what you say here. Unfortunately, with the vote started, I don't dare say so on arb; news.groupies are advising me to say as little as possible.... Also, Susan Maneck has threatened to one of the proponents to call for a NO vote, probably on private Bahai-only mailing lists, which was done during the 1st vote and was how it was defeated then. If you haven't read it before, you might look at the message that defeated it that time: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I genuinely believe it would be in Muslims best interest to help create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith; otherwise, you and others will continue to have the same experience with srb.... Susan Maneck's attack on me for slander this morning refers to her message in which she offers the same justification for her calling for a NO vote. I tell you this hoping somehow you could say something in defence of the proposal; the opinion seems to be now that anyone, especially me, who says anything outside the party line is beyond the pale.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai >Pat Kohli wrote in message <366211D7.1FC785DF@mail.ameritel.net>... >>> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> I am very amused with your statements. Firstly, your assertion >>> that Bahaism is a world religion is conjecture and an unproven >>> fact which is reject by every Muslim. >> >> Pat Kohli >> Obviously not every Muslim accepts the Baha'i Faith as their >> religion, but pretending it is not a religion does not make >> it a non-religion. Check >> https://www.interlog.com/~winters/encyclopedia/history.html. >> Pretending that Sikh or Druse are not religions also does not >> make them not religions. > >You missed the irony in my reply... > >Even though I was exposing the truth about some of the often >misquoted text of Quran used by Bahai missionaries, the >moderator claimed that my statement was "unproven"! I can't >see what level of "proof" he demands nor do I understand why >he feels it his right to prevent postings that aim to provide >such proof or raise the discussion based on clear evidence... > >If the moderator's excuse now is that everything to be discussed >on SRB must have been "proven" apriori, then once more that's a >double standard imposed solely on non-Bahais. Bahais routinely >are allowed to post unproven accusations and misquotations about >Islam and Muslims. I wonder why no one bothers to demand "proof" >from Bahai missionaries when they speak of Islam and Muslims on >SRB? > >My reply pointed out that, if one wants to demand "proof", >Bahaism itself has not been "proven", and the conjecture >it advances about Islam is false... > >>> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> Secondly, routinely you >>> and your collegues allow anti-Islamic postings by Bahai >>> missionaries on your forum and then censor any follow up, >>> clarification, or reply by Muslims. >> >> Pat Kohli >> Here are the threads from srb that I see on my news server: >> Subject Sender >> .......................... ............ >> Please identify the anti-Islamic postings. > >Pat, are you trying to pull our legs? I did not say "right >now", but routinely... You know, I have not been compiling >a listing of all such postings, but actually this lasy series >of postings (from last month or so until now), began when >some Bahais started posting articles on SRB about Islam and >their so called evidence for continuation of prophethood. >My postings were rejected as "irrelevant", while Bahai Emails >consisting of nothing but verses of Quran were allowed! > >I am certain you can browse and find them in dejanews... > >>> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> What kind of a "newsgroup" is this? Is this a newsgroups about >>> Bahaism, as it should be, or a house of Bahai missionaries and >>> a forum for Bahais to openly misrepresent the teachings of a >>> World Religion and offend Muslims? If you like to carry out with >>> your missionary efforts to attack Islam without hearing the truth >>> from Muslims, I suggest you get a private mailing list. If you allow >>> a Bahai to make a posting on Islam on your forum (as you routinely >>> do with finality of prophethood, Day of Judgment, etc.), it is >>> dishonest not to allow Muslims to provide a reply. >> >> Pat Kohli >> srb is a moderated news group. I've gotten a rejection >> message from Mr. Hyman as well. If you wish to discuss >> finality of prophethood or Day of Judgement, there are >> open threads on those topics right here at arb. > >Once more you are oversimlifying things. If moderators of >SRB feel that these topics are revelant to Bahaism when >Bahai missionaries post their "evidence" from Islamic >Scripture, then it only goes to show their bias when they >reject replies by Muslims on the same topic. > >>> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> I have had many complaints from Muslims on this issue and >>> know that the biased standard used by SRB is unlike that of >>> any other soc.religion.xxx newsgroup. >> >> Pat Kohli >> Perhaps you could direct your Muslim friends to post their >> views on finality of prophethood and Day of Judgement at an >> unmoderated group or perhaps an xxx.xxx.islam.x moderated >> group. I am unaware that Baha'is believe in finality of >> prophethood in a meaningful way, so it would not seem like >> a Baha'i topic. Jews believe that the Law of God was >> completed through Moses and no new Covenant has followed. >> Christians believe that the Covenant ends with the Injeel. >> Muslims believe that the Covenant ends with the Qor'an. >> Though Baha'is believe that the Manifestation of God for >> this age is Baha'u'llah, we do not believe that the >> Revelation of God ever ceases. > >I am not concerned with what Jews, Christians, Bahais, or >Heaven Gates followers have invented for themselves, at the >moment. I am discussing Biass and Censor of follow up >postings to SRB. Deliberate subversion of Islam by Bahai >missionaries is ugly and their censor of Non-Bahais on >SRB is unacceptable per Internet standards. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:52 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Manic's attack Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ She's obviously baiting me. I'd appreciate someone else answering her. The illustrious Bahai scholar is below contempt as far as I'm concerned, let alone comment..... -----Original Message----- From: Smaneck Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 10:51 PM Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >Christian writes: > >>Fred, you and I and Susan and all of us should all shut up about throwing >>stones and glass houses and flame wars. > >Your point is well taken Christian, but I really think "garbage" is a mild way >to refer to slander. > >warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 7:32 AM To: Kathy Pascoe Subject: Re: Is voting really in progress? Removed: Annotated NO voters for 2nd interest poll You'll notice Susan Maneck is baiting me this morning on alt.religion.bahai.... I might point out to you that the illegal posting of the CFV on soc.culture.iranian was in my opinion most likely done by a Bahai wanting to scuttle the proposal; Bahais know many Muslims will now vote NO if given the chance.... I will attempt to follow your advice but must say that you and other news.groupies are allowing the intolerant among the Bahais to use you.... They understand you and Usenet much better than you understand them. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: John Dale[SMTP:johnd@smtp.northlink.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Pointer CFV for talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I use a Pegasus Mail email program and I subscribe to various lists. How I subscribe to talk.religion.bahai using Pegasus Mail? Is there a distribution list that I can subscribe to. Sorry, I'm an internet dummy. Hope things are going well for you. Yours, John Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:32 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Manic's attack Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ Fran & Frank, A private conversation isn't sufficient if she's accusing me of slander and smearing the proposal in the process. I urge you both to respond to her on arb so that newcomers from the BCCA mailing lists or wherever are not hearing only her slander.... Incidentally, she's sore at me because I've opposed her apparent dream of being Queen of AOL.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House ; Frank Baker ; John Walker Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:59 AM Subject: Re: Manic's attack Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> She's obviously baiting me. I'd appreciate someone >> else answering her. The illustrious Bahai scholar is >> below contempt as far as I'm concerned, let alone >> comment..... > >Dear Fred, > >I'm having an exchange with Susan privately, so is Frank. >Don't let her get your goat. > >--Fran > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Smaneck >> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai >> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 10:51 PM >> Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >> >> >Christian writes: >> > >> >>Fred, you and I and Susan and all of us should all shut up about throwing >> >>stones and glass houses and flame wars. >> > >> >Your point is well taken Christian, but I really think "garbage" is a mild >> way >> >to refer to slander. >> > >> >warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:38 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai Dave, I just want to be sure you're aware of this too. It's clearly a violation of the CFV. Fred -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai >It has been brought to my attention that someone has improperly posted a >copy of the CFV to soc.culture.iranian. Although it was listed in two past >polls on the RFD, it was not this time. The CFV first appeared on >soc.religion.bahai with the subject line "unknown" by accident which was >corrected by the moderators. > >I assume it should just be ignored, though advice would be appreciated. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:52 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Re CFV talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Dave, > > I just want to be sure you're aware of this too. It's > clearly a violation of the CFV. thanks! -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Guy Macon[SMTP:guymacon@deltanet.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 3:50 PM To: Kathy Pascoe Cc: Frederick Glaysher Cc : Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] At 10:47 AM 12/08/1998 -0500, Kathy Pascoe wrote: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Waiting to hear your advice on how to procede, > >Shut your mouth and post nothing until the end of the interest poll. >You are endangering, by your behavior and conspiracy theories, any >possible success of this interest poll. > >This is a difficult time to get any proposal passed, given how busy >people are around the holidays. This is the time to say supportive >and helpful things, not to revive accusations and inflammatory >rhetoric. You cannot afford to alienate *anyone* right now. > >This is not the first time I have offered this advice, but it will >be the last. You have shown some ability to learn from past mistakes, >but you have stopped short of fully internalizing the good advice >you have received. > >If you insist on telling people what they should do in an insulting and >negative way, they will at best ignore you and at worst make sure you >fail. You need every YES vote you can muster. Turning YESes into >ABSTAINs and ABSTAINs into NOs will guarantee that this vote will not >pass. > >You keep accusing others, Fred. But your lack of discipline in your >postings has and continues to turn people off. That is your fault, no >one else's. > >You want advice: stop promoting your website. Take the annotated >NO lists off the site. Leave Susan Maneck alone. Offer a blanket >apology in arb to those you may have offended, and leave people in >peace to contemplate their vote. Maybe, just maybe, that will bring >in enough people to pass the group. Kathy speaks my mind on this matter. Frederick Glaysher is once again hurting the proposals chances of passing. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 6:25 AM To: Kathy Pascoe; Guy Macon Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Guy, Susan Maneck threatens to call for a NO vote, and someone, in my opinion a Bahai, illegally post the CFV to soc.culture.iranian, guaranteeing a huge number of NO votes, but I'm hurting the proposal...? I cc-ed Maneck's message to another proponent only to you and several news.groupies sincerely asking for advice about it. I haven't posted it anywhere else, while she continues to slander me on arb and AOL. I have removed the annotated NO voter list. Notice all the proponents have worked hard to put together a neutral, technical RFD while Susan-come-lately bashes it and calls for a NO vote--giving many Bahais an excuse to do so. You're ignoring so much of the complexity of the situation.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Guy Macon To: Kathy Pascoe Cc: Frederick Glaysher Cc : Cc :> Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >At 10:47 AM 12/08/1998 -0500, Kathy Pascoe wrote: >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> >>> Waiting to hear your advice on how to procede, >> >>Shut your mouth and post nothing until the end of the interest poll. >>You are endangering, by your behavior and conspiracy theories, any >>possible success of this interest poll. >> >>This is a difficult time to get any proposal passed, given how busy >>people are around the holidays. This is the time to say supportive >>and helpful things, not to revive accusations and inflammatory >>rhetoric. You cannot afford to alienate *anyone* right now. >> >>This is not the first time I have offered this advice, but it will >>be the last. You have shown some ability to learn from past mistakes, >>but you have stopped short of fully internalizing the good advice >>you have received. >> >>If you insist on telling people what they should do in an insulting and >>negative way, they will at best ignore you and at worst make sure you >>fail. You need every YES vote you can muster. Turning YESes into >>ABSTAINs and ABSTAINs into NOs will guarantee that this vote will not >>pass. >> >>You keep accusing others, Fred. But your lack of discipline in your >>postings has and continues to turn people off. That is your fault, no >>one else's. >> >>You want advice: stop promoting your website. Take the annotated >>NO lists off the site. Leave Susan Maneck alone. Offer a blanket >>apology in arb to those you may have offended, and leave people in >>peace to contemplate their vote. Maybe, just maybe, that will bring >>in enough people to pass the group. > >Kathy speaks my mind on this matter. Frederick Glaysher is once again >hurting the proposals chances of passing. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 6:31 AM To: johnd@northlink.com Subject: Re: Pointer CFV for talk.religion.bahai Talk.religion.bahai has not yet been created but you can vote for it now. See details in my sig file. Alt.religion.bahai is currently available. It too is a newsgroup. I don't know anything about Pegasus mail. You need a news reader program to read alt.religion.bahai or use www.dejanews.com Good luck! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: John Dale To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Pointer CFV for talk.religion.bahai >Dear Fred, > > I use a Pegasus Mail email program and I subscribe to >various lists. How I subscribe to talk.religion.bahai >using Pegasus Mail? Is there a distribution list that I >can subscribe to. > > Sorry, I'm an internet dummy. > > Hope things are going well for you. > > > Yours, > > John Dale > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 7:08 AM Subject: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience MEDIA RELEASE MEDIA RELEASE For immediate release. . . Contact: Frederick Glaysher xxxxxxxxxxx Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience On December 3rd the third interest poll began 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 banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, both appear ready for another stormy battle on alt.religion.bahai and AOL's Bahai Forum Message Boards; unlike during the last interest poll, Bahais seemed to be agreed on keeping the controversy off news.groups, the discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always usually debated. With three Americans and two Australian proponents, 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. Dr. Cole has said, "The checks and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion, within the faith and without." https://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, with nearly 5,000 hits on it since May of this year: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:00 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: CFV on soc.culture.iranian -----Original Message----- From: Sohayl Shambashi To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:46 AM Subject: CFV on soc.culture.iranian >FYI > >A bogus but apparently good copy of CFV appeared today 12/8/98 on soc.culture.iranian. > > > >Re: CFV: talk.religion.bahai more options > >Author: hyle >Email: hyle@my-dejanews.com >Date: 1998/12/08 >Forums: soc.culture.iranian >more headers > author profile >view thread > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > >This is a genuine Call For Votes (CFV). > >It appears in the official newsgroup 'news.announce.newgroups' on 12/4/98 >(watchout for the spelling if you type this). You should look at the official >one, lest this copy is doctored. I can understand your skepticism, Alä. > >This vote is a critical vote. If you are interested, please follow the debate >on alt.religion.bahai. The issue is that soc.religion.bahai is moderated. >alt.religion.bahai because it is on the 'alt.' hierarchy is not carried very >well on usenet, and most people do not have access to it. The CFV calls for >creating a new newsgroup talk.religion.bahai that would correct both of the >above issues. This is the 3rd time that it is going to vote, the first time >it lost, the second time it won, but did not get the 100 minimum votes >necessary. > >I believe 'Unknown' has taken upon himself to repost the CFV on SCI. This is >because the Usenet official responsible for the vote will post the CFV on only >a few newsgroups that have a close connection to the subject, and SCI was not >one of them. > >If you are interested, please look at news.announce.newgroups for 12/4/98. > >In article <366D5F84.6F80831D@erols.com>, > Ala wrote: >> >> Why should anyone take a post by >> >> an unknown person >> from an unknown place >> and unknown country >> and unknown server >> and unknown organization >> >> serious? >> >> Ala >> >> > CFV: talk.religion.bahai >> > Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 03:52:08 +1100 >> > From: Unknown >> > Organization: Unknown >> >> Unknown wrote: >> > >> > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) >> > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai >> > > > > >-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:01 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] -----Original Message----- From: DESiegel@aol.com To: kpascoe@ford.com ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:13 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >In a message dated 98-12-08 10:49:32 EST, kpascoe@ford.com writes: > >> >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> > >> > While you and David Lawrence are consulting on the >> > forwarded copy of the Bahai threat to call for another >> > massive NO vote on talk.religion.bahai, >> >> Please do not term one woman's opinion that she has not yet acted on as >> a group threat. >> >> > I thought it would be helpful to cc Usenent and news.groups >> > people who have been involved often or at one point >> > in the proposal in the past. It seems to me their >> > consultation and perspectives might be helpful too. >> >> I really don't think you'll agree by the time I'm done. >> > >> > I have not posted this in public. >> >> That's a fine piece of hairsplitting, Fred, since you started an >> inflammatory thread in arb about potential threats, even if you >> did not mention Susan Maneck directly. >> > >> > This threat might be compared to the actual successful call for >> > NO votes on three private Bahai-only mailing lists during the >> > first poll: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm >> > >> > Waiting to hear your advice on how to procede, >> >> Shut your mouth and post nothing until the end of the interest poll. >> You are endangering, by your behavior and conspiracy theories, any >> possible success of this interest poll. >> >> This is a difficult time to get any proposal passed, given how busy >> people are around the holidays. This is the time to say supportive >> and helpful things, not to revive accusations and inflammatory >> rhetoric. You cannot afford to alienate *anyone* right now. >> >> This is not the first time I have offered this advice, but it will >> be the last. You have shown some ability to learn from past mistakes, >> but you have stopped short of fully internalizing the good advice >> you have received. >> >> If you insist on telling people what they should do in an insulting and >> negative way, they will at best ignore you and at worst make sure you >> fail. You need every YES vote you can muster. Turning YESes into >> ABSTAINs and ABSTAINs into NOs will guarantee that this vote will not >> pass. >> >> You keep accusing others, Fred. But your lack of discipline in your >> postings has and continues to turn people off. That is your fault, no >> one else's. >> >> You want advice: stop promoting your website. Take the annotated >> NO lists off the site. Leave Susan Maneck alone. Offer a blanket >> apology in arb to those you may have offended, and leave people in >> peace to contemplate their vote. Maybe, just maybe, that will bring >> in enough people to pass the group. >> >> I will not vote on this proposal, as I will not use trb. But I hope >> that your posturing does not, for a third time, eliminate the chance >> of having the group for those who would use it. >> -- >> Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kathy@scconsult.com (home) >> >> >I don't know why I was copied on this, and I don't seem to have received the >msg to which this was a response, but I agree with everything that Kathy said >above. > >I voted "YES" on the first poll, largely as a "sympathy" vote, and in >anticipation of a large "political" NO vote. I abstained (or did not vote at >all, I can't recall which) on the 2nd poll, largely due to your accusatory >tactics, Fred. In particular, your attempts to make this poll a referendum on >the moderators of s.r.b, or their actions. > >I have not yet decided how to vote on the third poll. I approve of the >"neutral" RFD style very much, but your frequent posts of attacks on the srb >mods give the impression that that is a facade, and that the proposal is nor >really "neutral" at all. I am probably more inclined to abstain than to vote >YES at this point -- I can't see a reason to vote NO. > >Please, Fred, at this point the less you post, the better, unless you can >change your posting style noticably. Anyone who is going to be influenced in >your favor by evidence of allegedly improper moderation on srb already has -- >reiterating this type of post will only make you look like a "kook" and put >people off of your proposal. > > > -David E. Siegel > Siegel@ACM.ORG > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:04 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 11:09 PM Subject: Re: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai - FAQ >Fglaysher wrote in message >>March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of >>talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in >>effect more than a year and a half later. > >> >>November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly >>favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives >>Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing >>list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists >> >>May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher >>that contain his signature file: > > >Wow!!! I see you too had to put up with this kind of abuse for >a long time... This kind of censorship and vindictiveness only >goes to speak badly against them and all the long time Bahai >supporters of the House of "Justice" in Israel who are now >trying to put a spin on this and save face... It would be much >better for their souls, not to mention credibility, if instead they >came out and expressed their dismay at all the evidence. > >I just have to wonder about people who are willing to accept >someone's alleged claim of "abuse" and promote their "story" >of abuse all over the net, but then turn a blind eye to so many >reports of abuse and censorship by different people. I wonder >if their faith teaches them of Justice and Fairness... > >Regards. > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:06 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 10:26 PM Subject: Re: Reply to "moderator" of soc.religion.bahai >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ><73unh9$jgl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> I have been following Mr. Soltanis postings on >> alt.religion.bahai for some time, and wish to reply to >> what appears to be a veiled threat. > >A 'veiled threat'?! I don't understand why so many Bahais >have this urge to try to discredit people, imply something >negative, and resort to personal attack and name-calling! >Is this something inherent in the doctrine or the natural >defense mechanism that causes you to resort to this kind of >rhetoric to justify your membership in an ideologically >defeated doctrine? > >Actually, what I said was pretty clear - nothing 'veiled' >about it. Although no one single entity runs the internet, >there are ways to expose people who are abusing established >protocol and stop carrying of newsgroups whose moderators >are blatantly biased and are breaking netiquette. > >> For some time Mr. Soltani has been posting on this >> newsgroup, as well as others, and he has consistently >> rebutted the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Bab, and >> has taken the stand that Muhammad is the last Prophet, >> the Seal. > >This is a fair statement; but, I have been on and off this >newsgroup. I have to return and spend my valuable time >exposing deceptive Bahai claims, when I notice that certain >individuals, either naively or intentionally, are once again >misrepresenting my faith and spreading falsehood about the >Word of God. By now, many people have realized that doing >so is not only the just and decent thing to do, but also >is obligated upon me and other Muslims. I don't understand >why you seem to have a difficulty recognizing my duty and >right, even after I have repeatedly provided proofs from >the Scriptures! > >Why do the missionaries of all misguided groups want to >silent the voice of reason and the Word of God? Are they >threatened by the truth and are fearful that some of their >unfortunate followers will awaken to the Word of God and >find true guidance? > >Incidentally, if you have noticed, none of my replies to >similar postings on soc.religion.bahai have been allowed. >Don't you feel it odd that now, for almost a month, I have >been responding to all kind of allegation by Bahais on this >forum, but not one of my clarifications have been allowed >on SRB? Why do the moderators censor people who speak >reason and present clear evidence from Scriptures in support >of their claims? Why do they allow baseless conjecture, >misquotation, and misrepresentation of Islam, but not the >truth and response to their false allegations? What are >they hiding and what do they fear? > >> Mr. Soltani is free to do so, free to think and feel and >> believe as he wishes. > >You are too kind! Thank you. > >> If he refuses to open his mind and heart to the >> possibility that God has renewed His religion, then >> that is between him and God. > >Actually, if I were to disobey what Allah has so clearly >decreed (in many ways), then I would be an unbeliever. No, >thanks! I know Al-Islam pretty well and I know what Allah >(the Exalted) has said about the people before us who >ignored the Clear guidance, followed their own whims and >wishes, invented new 'faiths', and were doomed... > >Incidentally, we had this discussion almost a year ago, when >I explained the misconceptions you have been taught and were >spreading and provided dozens upon dozens of clear passages >from the Muslim Scriptures confirming that any doctrine >invented after Al-Islam is misguided and manmade. Obviously, >you have forgotten all our discussions... > >Perhaps, in light of what you have said, you need ask yourself >two simple questions: > > 1. Why do you refuse to follow the Word of God in a religion > that you yourself bear witness to be Divine? Speaking > of someone's mind and heart being sealed, perhaps you > need to work on your own house first... > > 2. If someone were to turn around and give you this same > line of argument, what would you answer? > > What if a member of another one of these other manmade > "faiths" were to invite you to theirs, give you a lot > of mumbo-jumbo on why you should join, and - when you > refuse based on Hussain Ali's words - advance some > ridiculous statement like: > > "If you refuse to open your mind and heart to the > possibility that God has renewed His religion, then > that is between you and God." > > Would you give up your faith because some biased missionary > accused you of being closed-minded? I do not think so. > Then I wonder, why are you even bothering to advance this > line of argument? > >When I say, this is cult mentality, some Bahais get all bent >out of shape and write all sort of articles to explain why >people should not see them as having been brainwashed! But, >the evidence is in pudding! So many Bahais on these forums >have shown to be ready to forget logic and reason, ignore >clear evidence and Word of God, and come up with exactly the >same line of tired and inaccurate excuses and arguments to >justify their position, that it can not be a simple coincidence. >To me, that smells like cult mentality. > >> Mr. Soltani bases his beliefs upon the Quran, and says >> that Book is the authority, the standard by which he >> measures everything. > >As repeatedly I have stated, the people who ignore the >clear Word of God and resort to conjecture are doomed. I >base my ideas on clear Word of God and the teachings of >the last Messenger of Allah, Muhammad(pbuh), and always >have provided quote to substantiate what I have said. > >> However... >> >> The Quran requires a dependence upon God, an open, >> inquiring mind, a pure heart, a loving, gentle nature, >> a reverence for all things and all people. > >Some people rely on deception and misrepresent the religion >Of Allah, I am authorized to expose them the way I see fit. >Incidentally, calling someone who steals a "thief" is not >having an abusive nature... > >> In contrast, Mr. Soltani consistently misspells the >> name of the Baha'i Faith, and uses terms such as "Bahaism" >> which he knows to be not only incorrect, but disrespectful. > >I am sorry, but you are once more only reflecting negatively >on yourself. I refer you to Webster's dictionary to see that >the word "Bahaism" is perfectly legal. And as far as your >"baha'i" versus my "Bahai", I like mine more and I know Persian >language! At least I do not abbreviate as "Bah", as some Bahais >abbreviate Muhammad as "Moh"... > >It is amusing that Bahai missionaries have no problem using the >words "Hinduism" and "Buddism", even though the followers of >these doctrines are hundreds of times more in number than and >have been in existance for thousands of years, and yet object >to someone else calling their doctrine "Bahaism". > >No doubt, this is more of the predictable strategy of these people. >They like to change the subject, attack people who speak justly, >and distruct people from clear evidence to trivial and unfounded >arguments. > >> He comes into these Baha'i newsgroups with assertions which >> are inflammatory and says that he is offended by Baha'is. > >Of course I am offended and so should any decent person be. > >We have seen how Bahai "proofs" are blatant misrepresentation >of Islamic teachings which even sink as low as taking passages >out of context. As a long-time learned Bahai, you may find >it normal and acceptable to misrepresent the facts, truth, and >teachings of another faith and claim a different "interpretation"; >to me that is dishonest and offensive... > >> He makes statements without documenting the conclusions >> which he reaches, either from the Quran, or from the Baha'i >> writings. > >This is indeed amusing. After testifying that you have been >reading my posts on these newsgroups for a while, you have the >cheek to claim that I have not being providing evidence from >Quran or Bahai arguments? Sadly, your own statements say >volumes about your true purpose for even bringing up this kind >of baseless inflammatory attack... Those interested to see >what I've said and whether I quote Quran and answer to Bahai >misrepresentations, can look into https://www.dejanews.com/ and >search for "kavosh and Bahai" in recent and past folders... > >Even my recent posting that exposed some of the misrepresentations >of Bahai missionaries, quoted what Bahais often use as "proof" >from Quran, next to actual passages of the Quran... > >I do not frankly believe anyone will fall for these baseless >attacks. Your strategy only goes to show the truth about what >knowledgeable Bahais do and what extents they will go to silence >the voice of reason and truth. I am glad this is not the time >of Shah and I am not living in Iran, otherwise I might have been >silenced in a more permanent way by those who collaborated with >Shah... > >> And finally, he makes what can only be considered to be >> threats. > >If you and your colleagues keep spreading falsehood about Islam >and Muslims on soc.religion.bahai and do not allow Muslims to >provide follow up responses, we will make the motion to discontinue >your propaganda forum, expose the falsehood of Bahais, and make >sure everyone on the Internet knows the truth about a doctrine >whose leaders purposely misrepresent other faiths and censor the >word of reason and truth... You want to consider this a threat? >I see it as a promise; one that it is right and justified... > >> Firstly, the Baha'i Faith is recognized as being a world >> religion by virtually every national government in the >> world, save a few, such as Iran. > >I am more interested with what God has said about this manmade >doctrine, than what some ignorant politicians have done... Those >people consider any two-bit cult a faith - even the ones Bahais >consider to be man-made... Secondly, there are almost 50 Muslim >nations in existance... > >> The Baha'i institutions are organized and established in >> over 200 nations. > >And, this should tell me something about the truthfulness >Of your doctrine? How many countries and localities has playboy? > >> Baha'i marriages are legal, students and employees are >> allowed to stay home on Baha'i holy days, Spiritual >> Assemblies are able to purchase and maintain properties >> for schools and centers, books and literature are >> legally printed and sold and owned and read. > >This is your evidence for being divine? Any cult would be >able to do the same. > >> The United Nations Organization has recognized the >> Baha'i Faith from the outset, and Baha'is are well >> represented in the non-governmental portions of this >> world organization. > >Being on the side of Israel and other anti-Islamic movements >has its advantages... Regardless, I do not see this as >truthfulness of your doctrine. The truth still remains >that you claim (obviously falsely) to accept divinity of >Al-Islam and Al-Islam rejects claims of Bahaism... The >fact that you lobby UN also goes to prove you are in truth >a political organization, regardless of all the talk of not >wanting to engage in politics... > >> Finally, Baha'is live in more localities in the world >> than Muslims, or any other religion save Christianity. > >I seriously doubt that even your exaggerated numbers of 5 >million cover more area than 1.6 billion Christians or 1.4 >Billion Muslims. Having an office in city X does not make >your representation the same as 100 Mosques in the same area; >the same holds of all other nations around the world... Your >supporters may publish such statements, but those are obviously >unacceptable to every thinking person... > >> I think that the assertion that the Baha'i Faith is >> a world religion is easily verifiable to be true. > >I see it as a man-made one; so do the majority of people >around the globe. > >> The Baha'i Faith is not rejected by every Muslim. A >> large percentage of Baha'is formerly were Muslims, and >> large numbers of Muslims admire the high ethical >> standards and the devotion to God which the Baha'i >> teachings inculcate. > >As we have seen, Bahais are unable to respond to the word >of God in Al-Islam. I doubt any sincere believer would >feel anything but sorrow for people who are following a >misguided and man-made faith which leads nowhere but to >destruction in the hereafter. I also like to point out >that Bahaism is declared as a man-made doctrine by all >Muslim scholars of repute for 150 years. In fact, any >individual who would ever accept what Bahai missionaries >claim (naturally, without any evidence) would cease to be >a Muslim, since he would be ignoring the Clear Word of God. > >> Unfortunately, many people are not allowed access to >> the Baha'i writings, and have only the statements of >> people like Mr. Soltani to guide them. Since Mr. >> Soltani does not quote either the Quran or the Baha'i >> Writings, it is not possible for readers to make an >> informed decision for themselves, something which >> Baha'u'llah emphasizes. > >I think you enjoy saying things that are obviously false. > >But, then, Bahai missionaries and scholars have been also >spreading falsehood about Islam and Muslims for 150 years >and that should be expected... Once more, if anyone wants >to see if I have or have not quoted Muslim Scriptures, they >should check dejanews and see the truth... > >> The statement that Baha'is allow "anti-Islamic" postings >> is easily verifiable as being untrue. > >Misrepresenting Islam and preventing Muslims from replying >to allowed postings is blatant deception and subversion of >truth. The postings by Bahais missionaries about Islam, as >we have seen on this forum are often misquotations or >conjectures about selected passages and without merit. > >> The moderated newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai, is regulated >> by a very high standard of conduct which does not allow >> for any attacks upon any individual or group of people. > >This is the perfect forum for spreading "propaganda". Just >imagine if their so called "proofs", "arguments", and evidence >were being exposed freely everyday; would they be able to >create such an ideal atmosphere to misguide and brainwash? > >> No posting attacking Muslims or Islam or the Quran would >> ever be permitted, and the rejection of Mr. Soltanis article >> is proof, if any is needed. On this newsgroup, which is not >> moderated, there are numerous postings attacking the Baha'i >> Faith itself, such as those of Mr. Soltani, but I do not >> recall any attacks upon Islam, Muslims or the Quran here, >> which were written by Baha'is. > >Any time Bahai missionaries misrepresent Islam, take Quran >out of context, attack Muslims, and misrepresent history, >they are attacking Islam and Muslims; not to mention all other >decent people. > >> Baha'is have responded to the many attacks on them and >> their Faith, by quoting from the Baha'i writings, the >> Quran and the Christian and Jewish holy books, but I do >> not believe an objective person would term these replies >> as being "attacks" themselves. > >I think any reasonable individual can see that while longtime >Bahai missionaries have been hiding in the background, unable >to defend the claims of their scholars and missionaries about >Islam, no response to usual Bahai propaganda has been allowed >on soc.religion.bahai. Do you think everyone is so gullible >to think for a minute, that Muslims whose duty include spreading >the truth and expose falsehood would patiently and politely >respond to all kind of unfounded argument by Bahai missionaries >on this forum, and keep quiet when it comes to SRB? Obviously, >not! The fact is that the lack of response by knowledgeable >Muslims on that forums is solely attributable to a blatant >pattern of censorship and abuse by the moderators of SRB... > >If I used a colorful title now (mind you the content is nothing >but supported discussion), it was to attract attention and >expose the truth about Bahai missionaries and their strategies. >Thank you for your help and collaboration in this regard... > >> Mr. Soltani states that he has received many complaints, and >> he appears to be attempting to force the Baha'is into silence. > >Obviously, I am not the only one and this is why all the talk >about creating a new forum talk.religion.bahai is going on. >However, my purpose is to stop this blatant abuse of Internet >netiquette by Bahai missionaries in SRB. > >> The Baha'i Faith is over 150 years old, and for every one of >> those years there have been attempts to silence Baha'is. > >Anytime you have mass graves come forth and I accept your >repeated assertions of massive abuse... > >Islam is over 1400 years old and every year there have been >hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed around the world. >While you wasted our time with your missionary propaganda, >probably a few dozen children died of disease and hunger in >Iraq, Bosnia, Kashmir, and elsewhere... If you think this is >reason for one's "divinity", I have a bridge to sell... > >If you have a complaint about the government of Iran, I >suggest you take it to an Iranian forum. After seeing the >blatant deceptive methods of Bahai missionaries, I know >better to take their word at face value... > >Besides, if I wanted to be impressed by every person who kills >himself or dies for some misguided idea (religious or otherwise), >I would be more impressed with heaven gates followers all of >whom took their own lives... Were they also following a divine >religion? They all died for their belief... > >This is the usual amo of missionaries. As we have seen it here, >they proudly come out and state the Muslim "shahadah" and call >themselves Muslims, when they know too well even a dictionary >defines a Muslim differently... They use the same strategy on >their poor naive victims and get them to do the same in Muslim >counties... > >In a Muslim state, just as Christianity and Judaism state, the >punishment for committing treason to God and State is death. >The poor people, who are tricked to declare their faith in the >manner of a Muslim openly and then are allowed to recant publicly, >are punished, just like anyone else would be. A Muslim, Christian, >Jews, Hindu, Bahai, or any other person who did the same would be >penalized exactly in the same way. There is no bias against >Bahais on that regard... > >Nevertheless, we should know that Bahai missionaries have been >ideologically defeated when they come up with such "evidence" >and empty "proofs" for being a "faith"... Do they have nothing >left that attack the believers, spread falsehood, advance >baseless arguments, avoid discussion of Divine evidence, and >divert discussion to claims of abuse somewhere around the world... >Sorry, if I say I am not impressed! > >In the meanwhile, I see all this shouting another attempt to >misguide more gullible People, intimidate Muslims and silence them >from exposing the falsehood of your doctrine, and seek political >Asylum and financial help for your movement. > >After seeing what Bahais are capable of doing on a newsgroup, I am >glad they no longer have a controlling hand in Iran; Otherwise, >they would abuse power even more and try to silence the voice of >Muslims as it was done at the time of Shah. > > ================================================= > None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers. > Let not, then, their strutting about through the land deceive thee! > (The holy Quran, 40.4) > > Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but > Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even > though the Unbelievers may detest (it). > (The holy Quran, 9.32) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:16 AM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Fw: CFV on soc.culture.iranian Dave, I don't know if this person's claim is accurate but he seems to imply he knows who the person was who posted the CFV to soc.culture.iranian and gives the header. I do know Hyle is a Bahai often opposed to trb and has posted many times to alt.religion.bahai. Fred -----Original Message----- From: FG To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:01 AM Subject: Fw: CFV on soc.culture.iranian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sohayl Shambashi >To: FG@hotmail.com >Cc: house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu > >Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:46 AM >Subject: CFV on soc.culture.iranian > > >>FYI >> >>A bogus but apparently good copy of CFV appeared today 12/8/98 on >soc.culture.iranian. >> >> >> >>Re: CFV: talk.religion.bahai more options >> >>Author: hyle >>Email: hyle@my-dejanews.com >>Date: 1998/12/08 >>Forums: soc.culture.iranian >>more headers >> author profile >>view thread >> >> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >----- >> >>This is a genuine Call For Votes (CFV). >> >>It appears in the official newsgroup 'news.announce.newgroups' on 12/4/98 >>(watchout for the spelling if you type this). You should look at the >official >>one, lest this copy is doctored. I can understand your skepticism, Alä. >> >>This vote is a critical vote. If you are interested, please follow the >debate >>on alt.religion.bahai. The issue is that soc.religion.bahai is moderated. >>alt.religion.bahai because it is on the 'alt.' hierarchy is not carried >very >>well on usenet, and most people do not have access to it. The CFV calls >for >>creating a new newsgroup talk.religion.bahai that would correct both of the >>above issues. This is the 3rd time that it is going to vote, the first >time >>it lost, the second time it won, but did not get the 100 minimum votes >>necessary. >> >>I believe 'Unknown' has taken upon himself to repost the CFV on SCI. This >is >>because the Usenet official responsible for the vote will post the CFV on >only >>a few newsgroups that have a close connection to the subject, and SCI was >not >>one of them. >> >>If you are interested, please look at news.announce.newgroups for 12/4/98. >> >>In article <366D5F84.6F80831D@erols.com>, >> Ala wrote: >>> >>> Why should anyone take a post by >>> >>> an unknown person >>> from an unknown place >>> and unknown country >>> and unknown server >>> and unknown organization >>> >>> serious? >>> >>> Ala >>> >>> > CFV: talk.religion.bahai >>> > Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 03:52:08 +1100 >>> > From: Unknown >>> > Organization: Unknown >>> >>> Unknown wrote: >>> > >>> > FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) >>> > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai >>> >> >> >> >> >>-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums >> > > ---------- From: John Walker[SMTP:johnwalker@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 8:35 PM To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Frederick Glaysher; Ron House Subject: Re: Talk Religion Baha'i Dear Fellow Proponents I have been extremely busy with business and Baha'i affairs and have not had the time to become involved in the debate on TRB. I hope you will accept my apologies for this lack of involvement. I am happy to be a proponent on the basis that a new unmoderated newsgroup can only be of benefit to all and provide a balance to the other newsgroups and a wider choice of invlovement. Having read some of the angry emails flying around cyber space about TRB I feel it may be useful to offer the following comments in the interests of getting the proposal for TRB adopted It would seem to me that the proposal should be argued on its merits. The merits of the argument will be clouded by personal issues and attacks on SRB. In my view involvement in such issues will be counterproductive and will in no way advance the cause of TRB. I feel, from a moral point of view, that my personal actions or reactions should be such as to promote love and unity and advance the cause of truth. Any action or reaction that creates disunity and estrangement is unlikely to advance the cause of truth. The fact that we are human and imperfect doesn't provide a license for every immoderate action or reaction. Every action needs to be evaluated in the light of moral principle. Obviously at times poor judgements will be made, but in my view unexamined emotional reactions will not advance the cause of TRB. Apart from personality issues what are the reasons Susan Maneck is against TRB? Can she articulate her reasons and can a credible counter argument be put? Can she be challenged to look at the situation objectively? If she has no reasons other than her personality conflict with Fred then this should be clearly pointed out to the wider audience. However it should be done as objectively as possible and in such a way that the argument is not clouded by personal issues or is seen as an attack on her. I will be away as from today for a week returning to home base on 20 December. I will be totally uncontactable during this period except on my mobile phone 0411 602 688. With warm regards John Walker ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 8:12 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Maneck's NO vote campaign Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/12/1998 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com> Dear friends, Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup. Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections by voting "no" in the interest poll. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 8:08 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Bill Aten; David Lawrence; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: A Bahai calls for NO votes Dave, I'm afraid I have to draw this to your attention too. You've already seen the illegal posting of the CFV to soc.culture.iranian. This person is the one I alerted you to last week who then at that time threatening to call for a NO vote. There are many falsehoods in this message as there were in her previous one. I will not comment on them as I did not on the previous one. I would be happy to respond though should you or anyone else wish to her my view of what's going on here. I do ask again that you compare this NO vote campaign to the one that was waged against trb during the first interest poll: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I must say too that her charges of "slander" against me are slanderous and clearly intended to stir up passions against trb. It seems to me this is a subject that should be discussed on news.groups as it will obviously impact the interest poll. Please advise me on what actions should be taken and whether or not the interest poll can be called off and talk.religion.bahai simply created. Perhaps this is especially a question for David Lawrence. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/12/1998 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com> Dear friends, Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup. Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections by voting "no" in the interest poll. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 8:23 AM To: SteveCase@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Maneck's NO vote campaign Dear Mr. Case, In your deliberations over what to do about the Bahai Forums and whether to appoint Susan Maneck as Manager, please take into consideration her message just posted to the Bahai Message Boards under For Non- Bahais in which she openly and shamelessly violates Usenet protocol and urges others to vote NO agains an active proposal for talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup. Her opposition to such an unmoderated forum speaks for itself. Should she be made Manager of the Bahai Forums, I believe she would only commit further transgressions against the minds and consciences of other people on AOL suppressing at every opportunity ideas and views which she does not deem orthodox. I find her repeated characterization of my opinons as, and I quote, "garbage" and "slander" insulting and demonstrates all the more her unfitness for fair, impartial handling of any duties you might entrust her with on AOL. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/12/1998 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com> Dear friends, Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup. Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections by voting "no" in the interest poll. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 8:49 AM To: Juan Cole Cc: K. Paul Johnson; K. Paul Johnson; Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: Susan Maneck's NO vote campaign begins FYI -----Original Message----- From: FG@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 12:13 AM Subject: Maneck's NO vote campaign >Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience >Date: 12/12/1998 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com> > >Dear friends, > >Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an >unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was >aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup. >Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this >constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge >anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections >by voting "no" in the interest poll. > >warmest, Susan > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 2:33 PM To: hyle@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims Are you Muslim? Are you opposed to the creation of talk.religion.bahai or for it? You may have noticed that Kavosh Soltani and other Muslims have had very negative experiences with soc.religion.bahai censoring their views. Talk.religion.bahai would be open to Muslims as alt.religion.bahai is. I do hope you will help Muslims understand that talk.religion.bahai would not exclusively be for Bahais only as essentially soc.religion.bahai is. Some Bahais have begun a NO vote campaign on AOL. There is a message about it on news.groups Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: hyle@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims >rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >> wrote: >> >Roger Reini wrote in message <366c891e.51594286@news.newsguy.com>... > >> >>Please observe the courtesy of referring to the Faith by its correct >> >>name, the Baha'i Faith. We do not refer to Islam by the name >> >>"Muhammadanism". >> > >> >I know that poor Bahai missionaries often resort to this excuse and >> >their other claim of massive abuse at the hands of "bad Muslims" to >> >change the subject, intimidate their opponent, offend those they can >> >not debate, and attract psympathy. But, why are you doing so? >> >> I am not doing so. I am making a different point: that your use of >> the term "Bahaism" is offensive to me. > >Dear Roger: > >May I ask, were you born with the Bahai Faith as part of your genetic makeup? >- No. >Did you not voluntarily choose to adopt the Faith as a belief? - Yes. > >Therefore, you have voluntarily chosen to consider the term "Bahaism" as >offensive to your beliefs. > >What you may consider offensive, may not be shared by others. It is not >incumbent upon a speaker to check with everyone of his audience, in advance, >to clear his choice of words with that audience. The term 'Bahaism' has no >racial, sexual, ethnic, etc. connotation, and is not in the same class as >remarks attributed to race, sex, ethnicity, etc. > >If in a forum, every individual or group of individuals, had the right to >object to the use of certain (non racial, sexual, etc.) terms that they may >consider personally and self-righteously offensive, and thereby stifle debate, >no meaningful dialog can take place, or that if dialog was to take place, it >would be an an atmosphere of fear, self-censorship, and retribution. > >There is a more universal and stronger right than the courtesy of not >offending one's chosen beliefs. And that is the 'right to free expression'. >If these two come into conflict, the 'right to free expression' naturally >takes precedence, by a wide margin. > >And may I add now that you have been offended, when you claim offense for >having your chosen personal belief insulted, and take it upon yourself to >demand that the speaker, and society at large, limit their right of >expression, I find that in-itself rather offensive, and of a higher order of >offense to boot. :-) > >Cheers, >Sohayl Shämbäshi > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims Are you Muslim? Are you opposed to the creation of talk.religion.bahai or for it? You may have noticed that Kavosh Soltani and other Muslims have had very negative experiences with soc.religion.bahai censoring their views. Talk.religion.bahai would be open to Muslims as alt.religion.bahai is; Abdu'l-Baha taught we Bahais should consort with the followers of all religions.... I do hope you will help Muslims understand that talk.religion.bahai would not exclusively be for Bahais only as essentially soc.religion.bahai is. A Bahai has begun a NO vote campaign on AOL. There is a message about it on news.groups Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: Sohayl Shambashi[SMTP:hyle@my-dejanews.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 12:51 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims Of course I favor TRB and already have voted YES to the CFV. Isn't it clear from my post below? I am defending freedom of expression. Also, in my previous posts, I have defended trb and unmoderated NGs on arb and on news.groups. Just check dejanews if you have forgotton (note: my previous email address was hyle@iname.com) So what kind of question is that? The rest of your message is rather cryptic. Pls. clarify. On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 14:33:21 Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Are you Muslim? Are you opposed to the creation of >talk.religion.bahai or for it? You may have noticed that >Kavosh Soltani and other Muslims have had very >negative experiences with soc.religion.bahai censoring >their views. Talk.religion.bahai would be open to Muslims >as alt.religion.bahai is. > >I do hope you will help Muslims understand that >talk.religion.bahai would not exclusively be for Bahais >only as essentially soc.religion.bahai is. > >Some Bahais have begun a NO vote campaign on AOL. >There is a message about it on news.groups > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: hyle@my-dejanews.com >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai >Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 12:53 PM >Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against >Muslims > > >>rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >>> wrote: >>> >Roger Reini wrote in message <366c891e.51594286@news.newsguy.com>... >> >>> >>Please observe the courtesy of referring to the Faith by its correct >>> >>name, the Baha'i Faith. We do not refer to Islam by the name >>> >>"Muhammadanism". >>> > >>> >I know that poor Bahai missionaries often resort to this excuse and >>> >their other claim of massive abuse at the hands of "bad Muslims" to >>> >change the subject, intimidate their opponent, offend those they can >>> >not debate, and attract psympathy. But, why are you doing so? >>> >>> I am not doing so. I am making a different point: that your use of >>> the term "Bahaism" is offensive to me. >> >>Dear Roger: >> >>May I ask, were you born with the Bahai Faith as part of your genetic >makeup? >>- No. >>Did you not voluntarily choose to adopt the Faith as a belief? - Yes. >> >>Therefore, you have voluntarily chosen to consider the term "Bahaism" as >>offensive to your beliefs. >> >>What you may consider offensive, may not be shared by others. It is not >>incumbent upon a speaker to check with everyone of his audience, in >advance, >>to clear his choice of words with that audience. The term 'Bahaism' has no >>racial, sexual, ethnic, etc. connotation, and is not in the same class as >>remarks attributed to race, sex, ethnicity, etc. >> >>If in a forum, every individual or group of individuals, had the right to >>object to the use of certain (non racial, sexual, etc.) terms that they may >>consider personally and self-righteously offensive, and thereby stifle >debate, >>no meaningful dialog can take place, or that if dialog was to take place, >it >>would be an an atmosphere of fear, self-censorship, and retribution. >> >>There is a more universal and stronger right than the courtesy of not >>offending one's chosen beliefs. And that is the 'right to free >expression'. >>If these two come into conflict, the 'right to free expression' naturally >>takes precedence, by a wide margin. >> >>And may I add now that you have been offended, when you claim offense for >>having your chosen personal belief insulted, and take it upon yourself to >>demand that the speaker, and society at large, limit their right of >>expression, I find that in-itself rather offensive, and of a higher order >of >>offense to boot. :-) >> >>Cheers, >>Sohayl Shämbäshi >> >>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- https://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 2:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; bill@netagw.com; group-advice@isc.org; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes Thanks for the info on possible problems. I may be saying too much here, but despite all these attempts to sabotage things, I see nothing in the voting that suggests any effect. I can explain to the UVV or group-advice better if they are interested, and will make an explanation available to the proponents after the vote has concluded. dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 11:17 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Dave Cornejo; Bill Aten; David Lawrence; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes (TRB) Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I must say too that her charges of "slander" against me are > slanderous and clearly intended to stir up passions against trb. Fred, the problem is that the rest of us have absolutely no idea what is the cause of the problem between you and Susan. I think you should drop this matter and simply ask that if anyone has any substantive issues to raise, then raise them. Whether you or she is right or wrong about AOL has nothing to do with TRB. I am more concerned with the post of the CFV on the Iranian NG. That can have no other object except to glean No votes from people who oppose the Baha'i Faith and haven't studied this issue. (For the benefit of Dave, Bill, and David, the Iranian government is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has in the past few months recommenced executing Baha'is for their faith. The mood in Iran, whipped up by the government, is one of anti-Baha'i hysteria.) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@stetson.edu] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 1:12 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House Cc: Dave Cornejo; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > Sorry Fred, I don't think you help matters by calling it a threat. Susan > is rightly upset, but I suspect in part, due to the forged posts going > around in your name. Dear Ron, No, it had nothing to do with the forged posts. Those were just stupid little posts that said nothing. More upsetting is his irresponsible accusations that Baha'i Institutions were behind it! More upsetting too was his accusations that the AOL Message Board is censored which is an out and out lie! And in part because you shoot from the hip and often warmest, Susan ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 10:43 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Dave Cornejo; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; smaneck@stetson.edu Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Dave, > > One of the proponents has received the enclosed threat to > call for a NO vote on talk.religion.bahai. I'd appreciate it if > you'd advise us on what to do or not to do about it. > Sorry Fred, I don't think you help matters by calling it a threat. Susan is rightly upset, but I suspect in part, due to the forged posts going around in your name. And in part because you shoot from the hip and often miss. I agree Susan's idea is wrong, but she isn't demanding anything so it isn't a threat. She's just considering her options, and I have written to her saying why I believe that the one she is suggesting isn't 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: Sunday, December 13, 1998 11:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Where's Walker? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Nobody's answered my email enquiring > about why messages to him are bouncing.... > > Dave Cornejo's email will surely be bouncing > too.... It might me wise to pass him another > address to use, if nothing else. I received an email from John today, but written a week ago. His outages and mine are in dissyncronisation, unfortunately, and he has given me a phone number to try. I'll continue trying to get him. But he's not dropped the ball, so don't panic. DON'T PANIIICCC!!!! :-) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 7:10 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. Date: 12/13/1998 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com> Dear Kevin, Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote: >3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention >to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >censorship by many neutral observers. I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander Fred has used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote "no." Had I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge the participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote "no" as well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote the newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered that such methods will backfire. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:43 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: bahaism vs bahai faith Afshin, I don't know if you're aware of it but a Bahai, Susan Maneck, has started a NO vote campaign on AOL. Many seem quite determine to do anything to keep trb from forming. As I've stated to Kavosh Soltani, I genuinely believe it is in the best interest of Muslims too for there to be an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith. I know you have a much longer familiarity with the history and issues involved with talk.religion.bahai. Since someone, quite likely a Bahai, has posted the CFV to soc.religion.iranian, let me ask you to consider helping Muslims there and elsewhere understand why they should vote YES for trb.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 1:37 PM Subject: bahaism vs bahai faith >Peace be upon those that receive true guidance, > >May I remind you Rachel that in Persian the correct word for the "bahai faith >" is "bahaiyyat" which in English would be translated as "bahaism". So there >is no need to go around acting offended and creating your own "offensive" >dictionary. May I also remind you that muslims do not take offense at >"Muhammadism" because of the "ism". Then we would be looked upon as silly. >Muslims take offense because it implies that we worship Muhammad PBUH which >goes against the very first commandment of Islam...there is no God but Allah. > >I hope that clears the matter up. Bahaism has nothing offensive inherent in >it like Muhammadism has. You are beginning to act petty and silly. I am sure >there are better issues at stake to discuss. > >For the truth about the baha'i faith / bahaism you can refer to this site: > >Answering Bahaullah >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm > > > > >In article <74umok$dfk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > r.woodlock@bigfoot.com wrote: >> Dear Sohayl, >> >> I think it is the sheer hypocrisy of Muslims like Kavosh insisting that it is >> offensive to call Islam "Muhammadanism" and yet turn around and do exactly the >> same thing to Baha'is. >> >> Just my two cents >> Rachel >> >> > Dear Roger: >> > >> > May I ask, were you born with the Bahai Faith as part of your genetic >makeup? >> > - No. >> > Did you not voluntarily choose to adopt the Faith as a belief? - Yes. >> > >> > Therefore, you have voluntarily chosen to consider the term "Bahaism" as >> > offensive to your beliefs. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Sohayl Shämbäshi >> >> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own >> > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:46 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims -----Original Message----- From: Chris Manvell Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 4:55 AM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims >Best wishes, > >Chris. > >PS I feel Fred has gone too far this time by issuing press releases >about my fellow believers. I have, at last come to the realisation that >to vote yes would really be voting for an inappropriately named group. >Think about it. >-- >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822 317 My, it's taken you a long time to unequivocally reveal your true colors.... But to no surprise.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:50 AM To: Ron House Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Where's Walker? John's never picked up the ball. He's never posted a single message on any public forum relating to trb. I highly doubt he has any sincere desire to see trb created.... He certainly has never demonstrated any.... His involvement in the proposal and discussion has even been less than Frank's.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Where's Walker? >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Nobody's answered my email enquiring >> about why messages to him are bouncing.... >> >> Dave Cornejo's email will surely be bouncing >> too.... It might me wise to pass him another >> address to use, if nothing else. > >I received an email from John today, but written a week ago. His outages >and mine are in dissyncronisation, unfortunately, and he has given me a >phone number to try. I'll continue trying to get him. But he's not >dropped the ball, so don't panic. DON'T PANIIICCC!!!! :-) > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:57 AM To: Ron House Cc: Susan Maneck; John Walker; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Susan Maneck's a liar and a deceitful bitch. I mistakenly defended her against a similar charge by Juan Cole early this summer. How foolish of me.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Susan Maneck To: Frederick Glaysher ; Ron House Cc: Dave Cornejo ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker ; smaneck@stetson.edu Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > Sorry Fred, I don't think you help matters by calling it a threat. Susan > is rightly upset, but I suspect in part, due to the forged posts going > around in your name. Dear Ron, No, it had nothing to do with the forged posts. Those were just stupid little posts that said nothing. More upsetting is his irresponsible accusations that Baha'i Institutions were behind it! More upsetting too was his accusations that the AOL Message Board is censored which is an out and out lie! And in part because you shoot from the hip and often warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:03 AM To: Ron House Cc: Susan Maneck; John Walker; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes (TRB) -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Dave Cornejo ; Bill Aten ; David Lawrence ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 3:10 PM Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes (TRB) >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> I must say too that her charges of "slander" against me are >> slanderous and clearly intended to stir up passions against trb. > >Fred, the problem is that the rest of us have absolutely no idea what is >the cause of the problem between you and Susan. I think you should drop >this matter and simply ask that if anyone has any substantive issues to >raise, then raise them. Whether you or she is right or wrong about AOL >has nothing to do with TRB. Susan wants to be Queeeeen of AOL.... I've opposed her apotheosis.... She has no substantive issues, only slander.... You're quite right that there is no connection between AOL and trb, but she has attempted to make one.... >I am more concerned with the post of the CFV on the Iranian NG. That can >have no other object except to glean No votes from people who oppose the >Baha'i Faith and haven't studied this issue. (For the benefit of Dave, >Bill, and David, the Iranian government is in violation of the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights, and has in the past few months recommenced >executing Baha'is for their faith. The mood in Iran, whipped up by the >government, is one of anti-Baha'i hysteria.) > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:06 AM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes Thanks Dave, It helps me hold on to some small shred of hope.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com ; bill@netagw.com ; group-advice@isc.org ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 2:00 PM Subject: Re: A Bahai calls for NO votes >Thanks for the info on possible problems. > >I may be saying too much here, but despite all these attempts to >sabotage things, I see nothing in the voting that suggests any >effect. I can explain to the UVV or group-advice better if they are >interested, and will make an explanation available to the proponents >after the vote has concluded. > >dave > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:13 AM To: Sohayl Shambashi Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims -----Original Message----- From: Sohayl Shambashi To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 5:51 PM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims >Of course I favor TRB and already have voted YES to the CFV. Isn't it clear from my post below? I am defending freedom of expression. Also, in my previous posts, I have defended trb and unmoderated NGs on arb and on news.groups. Just check dejanews if you have forgotton (note: my previous email address was hyle@iname.com) So what kind of question is that? I didn't mean to question your support for trb or sincerity or anything really and didn't mean to appear offensive if that's how you took me. >The rest of your message is rather cryptic. Pls. clarify. As I've stated to Kavosh Soltani, I genuinely believe voting YES for trb is in the best interest of Muslims. For there to be an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith would give them the hearing that soc.religion.bahai continues to deny them. Since someone, quite likely a Bahai, has posted the CFV to soc.religion.iranian, let me ask you to consider helping Muslims there and elsewhere understand why they should vote YES for trb.... A Bahai, Susan Maneck, has called for Bahais on AOL and probably elsewhere to vote NO on trb. She has a lot of influence with many Bahais and may prove quite successful in attacking the proposal. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > >On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 14:33:21 Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Are you Muslim? Are you opposed to the creation of >>talk.religion.bahai or for it? You may have noticed that >>Kavosh Soltani and other Muslims have had very >>negative experiences with soc.religion.bahai censoring >>their views. Talk.religion.bahai would be open to Muslims >>as alt.religion.bahai is. >> >>I do hope you will help Muslims understand that >>talk.religion.bahai would not exclusively be for Bahais >>only as essentially soc.religion.bahai is. >> >>Some Bahais have begun a NO vote campaign on AOL. >>There is a message about it on news.groups >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >>ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >>or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:21 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Ron House Cc: Susan Maneck ; John Walker ; Fran Baker ; Frank Baker Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:57 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Susan Maneck's a liar and a deceitful bitch. > >I mistakenly defended her against a similar charge >by Juan Cole early this summer. How foolish of me.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Susan Maneck >To: Frederick Glaysher ; Ron House >Cc: Dave Cornejo ; Frank Baker ; >Fran Baker ; John Walker ; >smaneck@stetson.edu >Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 5:12 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >> Sorry Fred, I don't think you help matters by calling it a threat. Susan >> is rightly upset, but I suspect in part, due to the forged posts going >> around in your name. > >Dear Ron, > >No, it had nothing to do with the forged posts. Those were just >stupid little posts that said nothing. More upsetting is his >irresponsible accusations that Baha'i Institutions were behind it! >More upsetting too was his accusations that the AOL Message >Board is censored which is an out and out lie! >And in part because you shoot from the hip and often > >warmest, Susan > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. I wish to thank Kevin for presenting a very balanced rationale for reconsidering Susan Maneck's call for NO votes against talk.religion.bahai. Let me say, with all honesty, that my only reason for wanting an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith is that Bahais might learn the importance of, and live up to, Abdu'l-Baha's demanding words: "These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ------- Subject: Reconsider the NO votes, please. Date: 12/12/1998 8:09 PM Eastern Standard Time From: KevinEco Message-id: <19981212200919.08230.00001915@ng-fc2.aol.com> As the tempest grows wilder, any attempt to present a balanced view on this subject appears more daunting, but now circumstances demand it. To all of you, whether Baha'i or not, determined to vote NO on talk.religion.bahai, please consider carefully the implications of your decision. Perhaps you reached this decision because you are annoyed with Fred Glaysher, and you think a NO vote the perfect revenge because it will annoy him. Perhaps you are convinced he has bad motives, and you believe anything that a person with bad motives will fight so hard to get must be a bad thing. Perhaps you don't have a clear idea of your own motives; whenever that happens to me, I always find it wiser to refrain from acting until I can clarify my own motives. Now, let's consider the worst-case possibility. Suppose for a moment that Fred really is a bad person with bad motives, perhaps even a Covenant-breaker. (Let me state in the strongest possible terms that this is NOT my conviction about Fred; I am sorry to discuss such an accusation even hypothetically, but sadly, the accusation has already been made public, so it has to be dealt with.) Even if this were true, even IF someone really does have destructive motives and really is hatching some kind of nefarious plot, we must remember that IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO SILENCE SUCH PEOPLE. The Baha'i Writings tell us that to defend our religion, we are to speak the truth about it when someone makes false accusations against it -- NOT to compel such persons to be silent. Leaving idealistic principle aside for a moment, let's get more practical. Suppose the talk.religion.bahai proposal really is part of some fiendish plot. Perhaps the fiendish plot is actually calculated to goad as many people as possible into voting NO, creating more evidence for the claim that most Baha'is love nothing more than censorship. Seem outlandish? Yes, but if you read the exchanges on news.groups, you will see messages from people who are non-Baha'is with no interest in Baha'i matters, who are discussing this only because they follow discussion of every proposed newsgroup. Several such Usenet authority figures have explicitly stated their temptation to vote NO simply because they find Fred's tactics annoying. If we indulge in speculating about motives, we have to include the possibility that this is no accident. Returning to the level of principle (as the Baha'i teachings require of us) none of us can claim anything other than speculation about the motives of Fred or anyone else. There may be tons of circumstantial evidence that someone has bad motives, but the same evidence could also arise from a person who is extremely devoted to a particular principle, and just doesn't have the talent or charisma needed to inspire people's sympathy. In neither case do the Baha'i Writings give us any permission to attack such a person. No, we have an inescapable duty to treat all with love and respect. For these reasons, let us all consider the following course of action: 1. Please stop giving vent to negative emotions regarding Fred Glaysher. Such venting will only drive him deeper into isolation, and as a creation of God he deserves better. If he really is trying to attack the Baha'i Faith, such venting can only strengthen the attack. Focus on issues and facts in every response to him or about him, both for his sake, and for the sake of adherence to correct principles. 2. Please reconsider any NO vote on the talk.religion.bahai proposal. If you're still determined to annoy Fred (after all my efforts to stir your compassion), consider that a large NO vote may be just what he's aiming for. A better way to send a message would be an ABSTAIN vote, which would show that you do not support the creation of talk.religion.bahai, but you are unwilling to provide more ammunition to those who claim that Baha'is try to censor everything. 3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted censorship by many neutral observers. To anyone who is still reading this longish message, thank you for your time. If my attempt to present a balanced view of this tangled situation has offended anyone, I offer my apologies, and hope you will be kind when you point out my errors. Your humble servant, Kevin ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. I wish to thank Kevin for presenting a very balanced rationale for reconsidering Susan Maneck's call for NO votes against talk.religion.bahai. Let me say, with all honesty, that my only reason for wanting an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith is that Bahais might learn the importance of, and live up to, Abdu'l-Baha's demanding words: "These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ------- Subject: Reconsider the NO votes, please. Date: 12/12/1998 8:09 PM Eastern Standard Time From: KevinEco Message-id: <19981212200919.08230.00001915@ng-fc2.aol.com> As the tempest grows wilder, any attempt to present a balanced view on this subject appears more daunting, but now circumstances demand it. To all of you, whether Baha'i or not, determined to vote NO on talk.religion.bahai, please consider carefully the implications of your decision. Perhaps you reached this decision because you are annoyed with Fred Glaysher, and you think a NO vote the perfect revenge because it will annoy him. Perhaps you are convinced he has bad motives, and you believe anything that a person with bad motives will fight so hard to get must be a bad thing. Perhaps you don't have a clear idea of your own motives; whenever that happens to me, I always find it wiser to refrain from acting until I can clarify my own motives. Now, let's consider the worst-case possibility. Suppose for a moment that Fred really is a bad person with bad motives, perhaps even a Covenant-breaker. (Let me state in the strongest possible terms that this is NOT my conviction about Fred; I am sorry to discuss such an accusation even hypothetically, but sadly, the accusation has already been made public, so it has to be dealt with.) Even if this were true, even IF someone really does have destructive motives and really is hatching some kind of nefarious plot, we must remember that IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO SILENCE SUCH PEOPLE. The Baha'i Writings tell us that to defend our religion, we are to speak the truth about it when someone makes false accusations against it -- NOT to compel such persons to be silent. Leaving idealistic principle aside for a moment, let's get more practical. Suppose the talk.religion.bahai proposal really is part of some fiendish plot. Perhaps the fiendish plot is actually calculated to goad as many people as possible into voting NO, creating more evidence for the claim that most Baha'is love nothing more than censorship. Seem outlandish? Yes, but if you read the exchanges on news.groups, you will see messages from people who are non-Baha'is with no interest in Baha'i matters, who are discussing this only because they follow discussion of every proposed newsgroup. Several such Usenet authority figures have explicitly stated their temptation to vote NO simply because they find Fred's tactics annoying. If we indulge in speculating about motives, we have to include the possibility that this is no accident. Returning to the level of principle (as the Baha'i teachings require of us) none of us can claim anything other than speculation about the motives of Fred or anyone else. There may be tons of circumstantial evidence that someone has bad motives, but the same evidence could also arise from a person who is extremely devoted to a particular principle, and just doesn't have the talent or charisma needed to inspire people's sympathy. In neither case do the Baha'i Writings give us any permission to attack such a person. No, we have an inescapable duty to treat all with love and respect. For these reasons, let us all consider the following course of action: 1. Please stop giving vent to negative emotions regarding Fred Glaysher. Such venting will only drive him deeper into isolation, and as a creation of God he deserves better. If he really is trying to attack the Baha'i Faith, such venting can only strengthen the attack. Focus on issues and facts in every response to him or about him, both for his sake, and for the sake of adherence to correct principles. 2. Please reconsider any NO vote on the talk.religion.bahai proposal. If you're still determined to annoy Fred (after all my efforts to stir your compassion), consider that a large NO vote may be just what he's aiming for. A better way to send a message would be an ABSTAIN vote, which would show that you do not support the creation of talk.religion.bahai, but you are unwilling to provide more ammunition to those who claim that Baha'is try to censor everything. 3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted censorship by many neutral observers. To anyone who is still reading this longish message, thank you for your time. If my attempt to present a balanced view of this tangled situation has offended anyone, I offer my apologies, and hope you will be kind when you point out my errors. Your humble servant, Kevin ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 7:14 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. >I wish to thank Kevin for presenting a very balanced rationale for >reconsidering Susan Maneck's call for NO votes against talk.religion.bahai. > >Let me say, with all honesty, that my only reason for wanting an unmoderated >forum on the Bahai Faith is that Bahais might learn the importance of, and >live up to, Abdu'l-Baha's demanding words: > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of >ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the >secrets of the contingent world." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > >------- >Subject: Reconsider the NO votes, please. >Date: 12/12/1998 8:09 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: KevinEco >Message-id: <19981212200919.08230.00001915@ng-fc2.aol.com> > > >As the tempest grows wilder, any attempt to present a balanced view on this >subject appears more daunting, but now circumstances demand it. > >To all of you, whether Baha'i or not, determined to vote NO on >talk.religion.bahai, please consider carefully the implications of your >decision. > >Perhaps you reached this decision because you are annoyed with Fred >Glaysher, and you think a NO vote the perfect revenge because it will annoy >him. Perhaps you are convinced he has bad motives, and you believe anything >that a person with bad motives will fight so hard to get must be a bad >thing. Perhaps you don't have a clear idea of your own motives; whenever >that happens to me, I always find it wiser to refrain from acting until I >can clarify my >own motives. > >Now, let's consider the worst-case possibility. Suppose for a moment that >Fred really is a bad person with bad motives, perhaps even a >Covenant-breaker. (Let me state in the strongest possible terms that this >is NOT my conviction about Fred; I am sorry to discuss such an accusation >even hypothetically, but sadly, the accusation has already been made public, >so it has to be dealt with.) > >Even if this were true, even IF someone really does have destructive motives >and really is hatching some kind of nefarious plot, we must remember that IT >IS NOT OUR JOB TO SILENCE SUCH PEOPLE. > >The Baha'i Writings tell us that to defend our religion, we are to speak the >truth about it when someone makes false accusations against it -- NOT to >compel such persons to be silent. > >Leaving idealistic principle aside for a moment, let's get more practical. >Suppose the talk.religion.bahai proposal really is part of some fiendish >plot. Perhaps the fiendish plot is actually calculated to goad as many >people as possible into voting NO, creating more evidence for the claim that >most Baha'is love nothing more than censorship. > >Seem outlandish? Yes, but if you read the exchanges on news.groups, you >will see messages from people who are non-Baha'is with no interest in Baha'i >matters, who are discussing this only because they follow discussion of >every proposed newsgroup. Several such Usenet authority figures have >explicitly stated their temptation to vote NO simply because they find >Fred's tactics annoying. If we indulge in speculating about motives, we >have to include >the possibility that this is no accident. > >Returning to the level of principle (as the Baha'i teachings require of us) >none of us can claim anything other than speculation about the motives of >Fred or anyone else. > >There may be tons of circumstantial evidence that someone has bad motives, >but the same evidence could also arise from a person who is extremely >devoted to a particular principle, and just doesn't have the talent or >charisma needed to inspire people's sympathy. In neither case do the Baha'i >Writings give us any permission to attack such a person. No, we have an >inescapable duty to treat all with love and respect. > >For these reasons, let us all consider the following course of action: > >1. Please stop giving vent to negative emotions regarding Fred Glaysher. >Such venting will only drive him deeper into isolation, and as a creation of >God he deserves better. If he really is trying to attack the Baha'i Faith, >such venting can only strengthen the attack. Focus on issues and facts in >every response to him or about him, both for his sake, and for the sake of >adherence to correct principles. > >2. Please reconsider any NO vote on the talk.religion.bahai proposal. If >you're still determined to annoy Fred (after all my efforts to stir your >compassion), consider that a large NO vote may be just what he's aiming for. >A better way to send a message would be an ABSTAIN vote, which would show >that you do not support the creation of talk.religion.bahai, but you are >unwilling to provide more ammunition to those who claim that Baha'is try to >censor everything. > >3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention >to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >censorship by many neutral observers. > >To anyone who is still reading this longish message, thank you for your >time. > >If my attempt to present a balanced view of this tangled situation has >offended anyone, I offer my apologies, and hope you will be kind when you >point out my errors. > >Your humble servant, >Kevin > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Guy Macon[SMTP:guymacon@deltanet.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 4:18 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Kathy Pascoe Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] At 06:25 AM 12/11/1998 -0500, you wrote: >You're ignoring so much of the complexity of the situation.... ...and you are taking actions that are mistakes, no matter how complex the situation is. If there is any situation that really the election unfair, email the vote taker *once* with your information, then shut up about it. All of the newsgroups and mailing lists are being watched carefully, and the proper actions will be taken if there are real problems. Meanwhile, every public accusation that you make, EVEN IF TRUE, cuts away a few more of the votes your proposal needs. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 1:53 PM To: Sohayl Shambashi Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims Sohayl, Having fought for an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for two years, I agree heartily agree with your reasoning. Unfortunately, it appears few Bahais do.... See my other comments below. -----Original Message----- From: Sohayl Shambashi To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:43 AM Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims >>As I've stated to Kavosh Soltani, I genuinely believe voting YES >>for trb is in the best interest of Muslims. For there to be an >>unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith would give them the >>hearing that soc.religion.bahai continues to deny them. > >I am not following Mr. Soltani. He does not have a presence at SCI. The mood at SCI is rather oblivious regarding trb. I am pretty sure that most SCIers will favor trb (except for maybe a few radical moslem types), but will they take the trouble to vote? 95% of SCIers are screen names, and will hesitate to provide a name, even a fake one, for the CFV. > >>Since someone, quite likely a Bahai, has posted the CFV to >>soc.religion.iranian, let me ask you to consider helping >>Muslims there and elsewhere understand why they should vote >>YES for trb.... > >I believe the reason Unknown posted the CFV on SCI was to generate an excuse for block negative voting elsewhere. They will cite this incident as the reason. The SCI posts will not generat no votes IMO. Yes, I believe this to be the case too. In my opinion, it was most likely a Bahai who wants Bahai NO voters to be able to blame a massive NO vote on Muslims.... I hope you're right about Muslims not voted against the proposal. I worry that many will. > >> >>A Bahai, Susan Maneck, has called for Bahais on AOL and >>probably elsewhere to vote NO on trb. She has a lot of influence >>with many Bahais and may prove quite successful in attacking >>the proposal. > >Are you saying that it has or will come down to a block voting campaing at the end? Will it be necessary to do a massive campaign on SCI and/or other NGs to attract the yes vote? I'm a proponent. I can't call for one. I urge people not to do such things. There can be no questions that some Bahais are campaigning against. Susan Maneck on AOL has openly called for Bahais to vote NO on talk.religion.bahai. > >If trb loses due to block voting, I suggest a lawsuit against usenet for violating our rights to free discussion. Usenet (or is it UVV?) should grant unmoderated big-8 groups when demand is there. Lets say I were to start a political newspaper and there were many groups opposing such a paper, do I have to go to a vote to start my paper? > >Free discussions is an inalienable right. I especially agree with your reasoning above. Alas, many of the new.groupies are quite gullible when it comes to the tactics of some Bahais.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: Sohayl Shambashi[SMTP:hyle@my-dejanews.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 11:17 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Warning: soc.religion.bahai censures and is biased against Muslims >>>Since someone, quite likely a Bahai, has posted the CFV to >>>soc.religion.iranian, let me ask you to consider helping >>>Muslims there and elsewhere understand why they should vote >>>YES for trb.... There is a serious danger that this would backfire (causing negative block voting elsewhere) if there are posts on SCI soliciting a yes vote. Also, SCI is not moslem. That is, 90% of SCI posters are secular and anti-fundamentalist Islam. Radical Moslems on SCI are few and far in between. Nobody picked up the thread to the rogue CFV on SCI. I do not believe that radical moslems would favor trb because essentially they are against open discussion. They feel they should crush Bahaism by force, rather than have to reason and debate with them. When you see a moslem posting and quoting Qoran or the prophets, most probably that is a fundamentalist. Most moslems do not give a hoot about the Qoran or the prophet, and are not devotees. Back in the Shah's time, the resentment by the general population about Bahaism had little to do with the religion (except for those felt by the mullahs), but more to do with the favored treatment, real or perceived, of Bahais by the power elite. You can find radical moslems in soc.religion.islam and alt.religion.islam. Ordinary moslems may probably support trb. I think your best bet is among civil libertarians and not among religious groups. (BTW, are you Bahai? No need to answer if you wish.) In CFV#1 and CFV#2, did you find a lot of moslem names voting no? I did not recognize anybody from SCI on your website list. But then, I am relatively new to SCI. >>I believe the reason Unknown posted the CFV on SCI was to generate an >excuse for block negative voting elsewhere. They will cite this incident as >the reason. The SCI posts will not generat no votes IMO. > >Yes, I believe this to be the case too. In my opinion, it was >most likely a Bahai who wants Bahai NO voters to be able >to blame a massive NO vote on Muslims.... I hope you're >right about Muslims not voted against the proposal. I worry >that many will. Again, do you think those who voted NO in CFV#1 and CFV#2 in large numbers, were moslem fundamentalists? I do not believe so. Send me a few suspect names, and I will check it out. I think the moslem community is quite oblivious to trb. I am planning to send a private email to my cyber friends to solicit yes votes. However, a post on SCI will not generate the interest, and has the danger of backfiring. If you have to go to RFD#4, I suggest putting the question in terms of 'freedom of discussion', and not in religious terms. You will probably attract a much larger audience, IMO. Sohayl Sohayl -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- https://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:42 PM To: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] -----Original Message----- From: Guy Macon To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Kathy Pascoe Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >At 06:25 AM 12/11/1998 -0500, you wrote: > >>You're ignoring so much of the complexity of the situation.... > >...and you are taking actions that are mistakes, no matter how complex >the situation is. If there is any situation that really the election >unfair, email the vote taker *once* with your information, then shut up >about it. All of the newsgroups and mailing lists are being watched >carefully, and the proper actions will be taken if there are real problems. > >Meanwhile, every public accusation that you make, EVEN IF TRUE, >cuts away a few more of the votes your proposal needs. Guy, I haven't sent her message all over the net as I did during the first vote when Mark Towfiq campaigned against trb on three private Bahai-only mailing lists nor have I sent it anywhere except to the votetaker, David Lawrence, you, and the other dozen news.groupies who have followed along at one time or another and were included in the cc to you too.... I'm distressed that you all seem seduced into blaming me.... A Bahai has also posted the CFV illegally to soc.culture.iranian knowing many Muslims will vote NO just out of spite. There's been a second call by her to vote NO. She has access to all the BCCA mailing lists that I was kicked off of last year for no good reason whatsoever, the full evidence of which can be found under my archives on my web site. She's angry because I've opposed her becoming the Manager of the AOL's Message Boards which I don't believe she'll handle any more fairly than she's handling this interest poll. By the way, this call is also full of slander, falsehoods, and distortions, not to mention such discussion should have been on news.groups. With hope and trust in your fairness.... Fred -------- Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. Date: 12/13/1998 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com> Dear Kevin, Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote: >3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention >to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >censorship by many neutral observers. I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander Fred has used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote "no." Had I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge the participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote "no" as well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote the newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered that such methods will backfire. warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:45 PM To: Kathy Pascoe Subject: Fw: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Kathy, I'm forwarding this to you because I forgot to cc when I responded to Guy. I think you should know more about Susan Maneck too. -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Guy Macon Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > >-----Original Message----- >From: Guy Macon >To: Frederick Glaysher >Cc: Kathy Pascoe >Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:21 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >>At 06:25 AM 12/11/1998 -0500, you wrote: >> >>>You're ignoring so much of the complexity of the situation.... >> >>...and you are taking actions that are mistakes, no matter how complex >>the situation is. If there is any situation that really the election >>unfair, email the vote taker *once* with your information, then shut up >>about it. All of the newsgroups and mailing lists are being watched >>carefully, and the proper actions will be taken if there are real problems. >> >>Meanwhile, every public accusation that you make, EVEN IF TRUE, >>cuts away a few more of the votes your proposal needs. > > >Guy, > >I haven't sent her message all over the net as I did during the >first vote when Mark Towfiq campaigned against trb on three >private Bahai-only mailing lists nor have I sent it anywhere >except to the votetaker, David Lawrence, you, and the other >dozen news.groupies who have followed along at one time or >another and were included in the cc to you too.... > >I'm distressed that you all seem seduced into blaming me.... >A Bahai has also posted the CFV illegally to soc.culture.iranian >knowing many Muslims will vote NO just out of spite. > >There's been a second call by her to vote NO. She has access >to all the BCCA mailing lists that I was kicked off of last >year for no good reason whatsoever, the full evidence of >which can be found under my archives on my web site. > >She's angry because I've opposed her becoming the >Manager of the AOL's Message Boards which I don't >believe she'll handle any more fairly than she's handling >this interest poll. > >By the way, this call is also full of slander, falsehoods, and >distortions, not to mention such discussion should have been >on news.groups. > >With hope and trust in your fairness.... > >Fred > > > >-------- >Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. >Date: 12/13/1998 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com> > >Dear Kevin, > >Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote: > >>3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your >intention >>to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >>actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >>censorship by many neutral observers. > >I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander Fred >has >used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote "no." >Had I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge >the >participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote "no" >as well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i >Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without >attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no >reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote >the >newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered >that such methods will backfire. > >warmest, Susan > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:55 PM To: Joe Bernstein Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Joe, I'm forwarding this to you because I think you should know more about Susan Maneck too. Her behavior in one forum is not the entire person. She had many run-ins with Juan Cole whose many messages are on my web site when she was a moderator of his h-bahai, a scholarly mailing list funded by the NEH. Although I don't know the full details, the led me to believe she had to resign under pressure from him or he would have kicked her off anyway. I myself found her very heavy-handed there as she has been on AOL. Please find below her second call for a NO vote. I'm including my response to Guy Macon since it may have some relevant points in it too. Fred -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Guy Macon Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > >-----Original Message----- >From: Guy Macon >To: Frederick Glaysher >Cc: Kathy Pascoe >Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:21 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] > > >>At 06:25 AM 12/11/1998 -0500, you wrote: >> >>>You're ignoring so much of the complexity of the situation.... >> >>...and you are taking actions that are mistakes, no matter how complex >>the situation is. If there is any situation that really the election >>unfair, email the vote taker *once* with your information, then shut up >>about it. All of the newsgroups and mailing lists are being watched >>carefully, and the proper actions will be taken if there are real problems. >> >>Meanwhile, every public accusation that you make, EVEN IF TRUE, >>cuts away a few more of the votes your proposal needs. > > >Guy, > >I haven't sent her message all over the net as I did during the >first vote when Mark Towfiq campaigned against trb on three >private Bahai-only mailing lists nor have I sent it anywhere >except to the votetaker, David Lawrence, you, and the other >dozen news.groupies who have followed along at one time or >another and were included in the cc to you too.... > >I'm distressed that you all seem seduced into blaming me.... >A Bahai has also posted the CFV illegally to soc.culture.iranian >knowing many Muslims will vote NO just out of spite. > >There's been a second call by her to vote NO. She has access >to all the BCCA mailing lists that I was kicked off of last >year for no good reason whatsoever, the full evidence of >which can be found under my archives on my web site. > >She's angry because I've opposed her becoming the >Manager of the AOL's Message Boards which I don't >believe she'll handle any more fairly than she's handling >this interest poll. > >By the way, this call is also full of slander, falsehoods, and >distortions, not to mention such discussion should have been >on news.groups. > >With hope and trust in your fairness.... > >Fred > > > >-------- >Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. >Date: 12/13/1998 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com> > >Dear Kevin, > >Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote: > >>3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your >intention >>to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >>actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >>censorship by many neutral observers. > >I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander Fred >has >used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote "no." >Had I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge >the >participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote "no" >as well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i >Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without >attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no >reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote >the >newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered >that such methods will backfire. > >warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:36 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. If he ceases to use calmuny to promote his newsgroup then I will >withdraw my call for a "no" vote. Fairminded observers will not have much trouble perceiving that the calmuny taking place here is by Susan Maneck who has repeatedly referred to my ideas as "garbage" and "slander" without once even citing an example of what constitutes the latter. Her further attempt to equate talk.religion.bahai with me personally reveals her grudge against me for not supporting her ascension to power on AOL as the Bahai Forum Leader. I am only ONE of five proponents, one of which is a National Spiritual Assembly member in Australia, while another comes from a prominent American Bahai family: Frederick Glaysher Ron House An Australian Bahai Fran Baker Non-Bahai, spouse of Frank Baker Frank Baker fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Fran's spouse & Grandson of Dorthy Baker John Walker Australian Bahai & NSA member Susan Maneck's grudge is a personal one others should not allow to cloud their judgment. It is clear she hopes it will. Why she is indulging in this bacchanalia of backbiting and slander against talk.religion.bahai is obviously to whip up passions against. This is a shameful technique, used in the past, that I hope reasonable people will not fall prey to.... The votetaker has been informed of her activities. Since I now believe it would be playing into her hands if I were to comment further on her specious, inflammatory charges, which is exactly what she appears to want, I shall not be responding to anything posted by her until the interest is finished on December 25th. I urge all those who have not read it to consider Kevin Eco's balanced appraisal of the issues surrounding talk.religion.bahai which started this thread. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:36 AM Subject: Re: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. If he ceases to use calmuny to promote his newsgroup then I will >withdraw my call for a "no" vote. Fairminded observers will not have much trouble perceiving that the calmuny taking place here is by Susan Maneck who has repeatedly referred to my ideas as "garbage" and "slander" without once even citing an example of what constitutes the latter. Her further attempt to equate talk.religion.bahai with me personally reveals her grudge against me for not supporting her ascension to power on AOL as the Bahai Forum Leader. I am only ONE of five proponents, one of which is a National Spiritual Assembly member in Australia, while another comes from a prominent American Bahai family: Frederick Glaysher Ron House An Australian Bahai Fran Baker Non-Bahai, spouse of Frank Baker Frank Baker fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Fran's spouse & Grandson of Dorthy Baker John Walker Australian Bahai & NSA member Susan Maneck's grudge is a personal one others should not allow to cloud their judgment. It is clear she hopes it will. Why she is indulging in this bacchanalia of backbiting and slander against talk.religion.bahai is obviously to whip up passions against. This is a shameful technique, used in the past, that I hope reasonable people will not fall prey to.... The votetaker has been informed of her activities. Since I now believe it would be playing into her hands if I were to comment further on her specious, inflammatory charges, which is exactly what she appears to want, I shall not be responding to anything posted by her until the interest is finished on December 25th. I urge all those who have not read it to consider Kevin Eco's balanced appraisal of the issues surrounding talk.religion.bahai which started this thread. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Maneck on slander Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/15/1998 1:49 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981215014952.00894.00003468@ng-bw1.aol.com> Dear Fred, I am specifically referring to the slander you made against this list. In your Media Release you wrote: >With recent clashes >even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai >banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, This is an out and out lie and anyone who participates on this list knows it. There are web links even to Covenant breaker's sites here. Nothing has been banned, there has simply been no one available to do this task. There are other misrepresenations in your post as well, but this is the one which is an offense to all the members who participate in this uncensored forum. Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Maneck on slander Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/15/1998 1:49 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981215014952.00894.00003468@ng-bw1.aol.com> Dear Fred, I am specifically referring to the slander you made against this list. In your Media Release you wrote: >With recent clashes >even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai >banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, This is an out and out lie and anyone who participates on this list knows it. There are web links even to Covenant breaker's sites here. Nothing has been banned, there has simply been no one available to do this task. There are other misrepresenations in your post as well, but this is the one which is an offense to all the members who participate in this uncensored forum. Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:20 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. fyi -----Original Message----- From: Smaneck Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 10:31 PM Subject: Re: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. >Dear friends, > >I had deliberately confined my call for a no vote to the AOL Message Board >where I found the disruptive behaviour and slanderous accusations of >censorship against the Baha'i Board which Mr. Glaysher was using to promote >his newsgroup more than I could stomach. Since the participants on the Message >Board were in the best position to judge the falseness of Glaysher's statements >I asked them to express their outrage by voting at the use of this kind of >tactic by voting no. I had not intended for the call for a "no vote" to go >beyond that list, but it seems Glaysher himself wishes to do this by posting >references to this here on the alt. list. So be it. I am therefore reposting >below the original messages I had placed on the AOL Message Board regarding >this matter. The members of this list can decide for themselves whether this >call was justified. It is up to Mr. Glaysher himself to decide how far this >will go. If he ceases to use calmuny to promote his newsgroup then I will >withdraw my call for a "no" vote. If he continues then those who are properly >informed of the truth of these matters should vote their conscience. > >warmest, Susan > >Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience >Date: 12/12/98 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com> > >Dear friends, > >Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an >unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was >aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup. >Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this >constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge >anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections >by voting "no" in the interest poll. > >warmest, Susan > >Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please. >Date: 12/13/98 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com> > >Dear Kevin, > >Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote: > >>3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your intention >>to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both >>actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted >>censorship by many neutral observers. > >I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander Fred has >used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote "no." Had >I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge the >participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote "no" as >well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i >Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without >attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no >reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote the >newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered >that such methods will backfire. > >warmest, Susan > >Subject: Re: Message to Mark Foster >Date: 12/14/98 11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981214113637.00888.00003268@ng-bw1.aol.com> > >Fred writes: > >>I quote here too Kevin's rebuttal of her scurrilous attack: > >Kevin did not at all suggest that what I had written about you was scurrilous. >He was simply arguing that whatever tactics you are using to promote the list >do not justify a "no" vote. I disagree. There are other supporters of trb that >have made the even stronger point that they do not support what you are doing >and it is unfair to scuttle the newsgroup because of your actions. They have >even accused me of descending to your level (what a scathing criticism that >is!). They have a point, and that is why I have not broaden my call for a "no" >vote to involve all the lists I participate on. But newsgroups ought not to be >approved as a result of campaigns of slander, therefore on the forums where >such slander is obvious to everyone, I urge those seeing it to register their >protest and call "foul" by voting no. > >Susan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:20 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:36 AM Subject: Re: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please. >If he ceases to use calmuny to promote his newsgroup then I will >>withdraw my call for a "no" vote. > >Fairminded observers will not have much trouble perceiving >that the calmuny taking place here is by Susan Maneck who >has repeatedly referred to my ideas as "garbage" and "slander" >without once even citing an example of what constitutes the >latter. > >Her further attempt to equate talk.religion.bahai with me >personally reveals her grudge against me for not supporting >her ascension to power on AOL as the Bahai Forum Leader. >I am only ONE of five proponents, one of which is a National >Spiritual Assembly member in Australia, while another comes >from a prominent American Bahai family: > >Frederick Glaysher >Ron House An Australian Bahai >Fran Baker Non-Bahai, spouse of Frank Baker >Frank Baker fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Fran's spouse & Grandson of Dorthy >Baker >John Walker Australian Bahai & NSA member > >Susan Maneck's grudge is a personal one others should >not allow to cloud their judgment. It is clear she hopes it >will. Why she is indulging in this bacchanalia of backbiting >and slander against talk.religion.bahai is obviously to >whip up passions against. This is a shameful technique, >used in the past, that I hope reasonable people will not fall >prey to.... > >The votetaker has been informed of her activities. > >Since I now believe it would be playing into her hands if >I were to comment further on her specious, inflammatory charges, >which is exactly what she appears to want, I shall not be responding >to anything posted by her until the interest is finished on >December 25th. > >I urge all those who have not read it to consider Kevin Eco's >balanced appraisal of the issues surrounding talk.religion.bahai >which started this thread. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: My response to Maneck's slander Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/15/1998 7:02 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981215070259.09500.00001887@ng-fs1.aol.com> >Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience >Date: 12/15/1998 1:49 AM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981215014952.00894.00003468@ng-bw1.aol.com> > >Dear Fred, > >I am specifically referring to the slander you made against this list. In >your Media Release you wrote: > >>With recent clashes >>even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai >>banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, > >This is an out and out lie and anyone who participates on this list knows it. This is not a lie at all. There have been many clashes on AOL over freedom of speech and conscience. >There are web links even to Covenant breaker's sites here. Nothing has been >banned, there has simply been no one available to do this task. In my referring to what I have called the 3 Issues I repeatedly stated I have never charged the folders here themselves are censored but rather that the stagnant situation itself is to the advantage of Bahai fundamentalists to allow to continue.... > >There are other misrepresenations in your post as well, but this is the one >which is an offense to all the members who participate in this uncensored >forum. It is obvious you're straining hard to trump it up into one! You have no basis for accusing me of slander, only your resentment that I've opposed your bid for power as Forum Leader.... Not a pretty sight, Susan, not a pretty sight.... What a strange sight you present to Non-Bahais and impartial observers who will perceive the desperation with which many Bahais oppose freedom of speech and conscience, seeking the flimsiest excuses for opposing talk.religion.bahai and denying these great words of 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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > >Susan Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: My response to Maneck's slander Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience Date: 12/15/1998 7:02 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981215070259.09500.00001887@ng-fs1.aol.com> >Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience >Date: 12/15/1998 1:49 AM Eastern Standard Time >From: Smaneck >Message-id: <19981215014952.00894.00003468@ng-bw1.aol.com> > >Dear Fred, > >I am specifically referring to the slander you made against this list. In >your Media Release you wrote: > >>With recent clashes >>even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai >>banning for months now any links to any web sites whatsoever, > >This is an out and out lie and anyone who participates on this list knows it. This is not a lie at all. There have been many clashes on AOL over freedom of speech and conscience. >There are web links even to Covenant breaker's sites here. Nothing has been >banned, there has simply been no one available to do this task. In my referring to what I have called the 3 Issues I repeatedly stated I have never charged the folders here themselves are censored but rather that the stagnant situation itself is to the advantage of Bahai fundamentalists to allow to continue.... > >There are other misrepresenations in your post as well, but this is the one >which is an offense to all the members who participate in this uncensored >forum. It is obvious you're straining hard to trump it up into one! You have no basis for accusing me of slander, only your resentment that I've opposed your bid for power as Forum Leader.... Not a pretty sight, Susan, not a pretty sight.... What a strange sight you present to Non-Bahais and impartial observers who will perceive the desperation with which many Bahais oppose freedom of speech and conscience, seeking the flimsiest excuses for opposing talk.religion.bahai and denying these great words of 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." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > >Susan Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 12:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Steve Case responds re Forum Leader Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/15/1998 9:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Steve Case To: Fglaysher Dear fglaysher, I am responding to your letter on behalf of Steve Case. Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We appreciate member feedback because it is the best way for us to know what we are doing right -- and what we could do better. I have passed your comments to the appropriate person at America Online. Please feel free to write us again at any time. Sincerely, Shawnna T Office of the Chairman ------------------------- Dear Mr. Case: The continuing serious negelect of the Bahai Forums would not be solved in the best interest of all AOL members by appointing Susan Maneck. My experience with her on a scholar mailing list h-bahai at the University of Michigan and her recent attacks on the creation of talk.religion.bahai on Usenet convince me that she would not be a fair arbiter. She has recently threatened to violate Usenet interest poll custom by calling for a NO vote against the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai, which has been defeated in the past by a massive NO vote campaign mounted by other Bahais in a similar fashion: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I hope you will help find a solution to prevent another such Bahai from having control over the free speech and conscience of AOL members. Specifically she has continued to ignore my and others' concerns about 3 key areas. I've clipped them out of the REVISED PETITION: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 12:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Steve Case responds re Forum Leader Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/15/1998 9:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Steve Case To: Fglaysher Dear fglaysher, I am responding to your letter on behalf of Steve Case. Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We appreciate member feedback because it is the best way for us to know what we are doing right -- and what we could do better. I have passed your comments to the appropriate person at America Online. Please feel free to write us again at any time. Sincerely, Shawnna T Office of the Chairman ------------------------- Dear Mr. Case: The continuing serious negelect of the Bahai Forums would not be solved in the best interest of all AOL members by appointing Susan Maneck. My experience with her on a scholar mailing list h-bahai at the University of Michigan and her recent attacks on the creation of talk.religion.bahai on Usenet convince me that she would not be a fair arbiter. She has recently threatened to violate Usenet interest poll custom by calling for a NO vote against the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai, which has been defeated in the past by a massive NO vote campaign mounted by other Bahais in a similar fashion: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I hope you will help find a solution to prevent another such Bahai from having control over the free speech and conscience of AOL members. Specifically she has continued to ignore my and others' concerns about 3 key areas. I've clipped them out of the REVISED PETITION: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 1:11 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote I am the vote taker for this proposal. You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of your solicitation violates the guidelines. Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having come from this solicitation will be cancelled. I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dear Fred, I visited your web site recently and was happy to see your addition of the text of the First Amendment and link to the Roger Williams site (I'm from Rhode Island, by the way!). Nice touches both. --Fran ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 1:52 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Afshin Afrashteh is a Muslim who has also participated to one > degree or another in the past two votes. If memory serves, he > may have posted a full or partial CFV to two or three Muslim > newsgroups during the first vote. I can assure you none of the > proponents had anything to do with this action and that we all > do and will heartily denounce it. noted. > What newsgroups did he post to? I'm not real sure - someone emailed me a url on dejanews which came up with about a half dozen or so. > Is there anything else we can do about it? Please email him and ask him to stop it. I would like to see an email from him acknowledging that he has. I would also like him to post to all the same places he did a message stating that it was improper for him to post the voting instructions, and that the only legitimate source for the voting instructions is me. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 2:00 PM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: dave@dogwood.com; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: > May I remind you that this campaigning was exactly how trb has failed in > the past. I wonder why the same standard is not applied. Besides, how can > you identify which votes came for what reason? And finally as you are > aware, I did this because I saw that bahais and especially Susan Maneck > had already campaigned for a no vote and nothing was said or done about > it. Oh yeah, I don't see what is wrong with campaigning - after all - the > whole idea of voting is to see who is intereste in the newsgroup no? So > what is wrong with giving people all information so that they can vote > with knowledge. There is nothing wrong with campaigning - the problem was that you posted voting instructions. If someone campaigning for no vote posts the voting instructions they would be just as wrong as you were and I would deal with them in a similar manner. The whole point of this is that people that vote have full knowledge of the issue - which is why I publish a CFV. People need to read it, understand it, and then vote. By publishing the voting instructions you are preventing people from doing this. Please read the CFV - it should all be spelled out there. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 6:25 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave, Afshin Afrashteh is a Muslim who has also participated to one degree or another in the past two votes. If memory serves, he may have posted a full or partial CFV to two or three Muslim newsgroups during the first vote. I can assure you none of the proponents had anything to do with this action and that we all do and will heartily denounce it. What newsgroups did he post to? Is there anything else we can do about it? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 1:11 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote >I am the vote taker for this proposal. > >You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several >newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of >your solicitation violates the guidelines. > >Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility >of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having >come from this solicitation will be cancelled. > >I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their >comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 6:54 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 3rd violation - call for YES votes Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r28@chronicle.concentric.net>... > >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup >proposal. The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a fair manner. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 7:14 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: My Response to AOL Shawna T Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/16/1998 7:12:29 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher To: ShawnnaT CC: Fglaysher Shawnna T Office of the Chairman Dear Shawnna, Thank you for acknowledging my message to Mr. Case. I appreciate your re-routing it to the appropriate person as AOL and I look forward to hearing from him or her. Since my original message to you efforts by some Bahais to use the AOL forums to undermine the Usenet system of interest polling on talk.religion.bahai have only increased, especially by Susan Maneck. It's a very complicated situation with a long and tulmultous history on AOL. I trust the person you're referring me to will have the patience and tenacity to help improve the Bahai Forums. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ------ Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/15/1998 9:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Steve Case To: Fglaysher Dear fglaysher, I am responding to your letter on behalf of Steve Case. Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We appreciate member feedback because it is the best way for us to know what we are doing right -- and what we could do better. I have passed your comments to the appropriate person at America Online. Please feel free to write us again at any time. Sincerely, Shawnna T Office of the Chairman ------------------------- Dear Mr. Case: The continuing serious negelect of the Bahai Forums would not be solved in the best interest of all AOL members by appointing Susan Maneck. My experience with her on a scholar mailing list h-bahai at the University of Michigan and her recent attacks on the creation of talk.religion.bahai on Usenet convince me that she would not be a fair arbiter. She has recently threatened to violate Usenet interest poll custom by calling for a NO vote against the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai, which has been defeated in the past by a massive NO vote campaign mounted by other Bahais in a similar fashion: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I hope you will help find a solution to prevent another such Bahai from having control over the free speech and conscience of AOL members. Specifically she has continued to ignore my and others' concerns about 3 key areas. I've clipped them out of the REVISED PETITION: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 7:17 AM Subject: 5,029+ hits - "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Since May 8, 1998, there have now been well over 5,000 hits on my web site.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca[SMTP:afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 8:08 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dear Sir, May I remind you that this campaigning was exactly how trb has failed in the past. I wonder why the same standard is not applied. Besides, how can you identify which votes came for what reason? And finally as you are aware, I did this because I saw that bahais and especially Susan Maneck had already campaigned for a no vote and nothing was said or done about it. Oh yeah, I don't see what is wrong with campaigning - after all - the whole idea of voting is to see who is intereste in the newsgroup no? So what is wrong with giving people all information so that they can vote with knowledge. Thanks. Afshin Afrashteh On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Dave Cornejo wrote: > I am the vote taker for this proposal. > > You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several > newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of > your solicitation violates the guidelines. > > Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility > of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having > come from this solicitation will be cancelled. > > I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their > comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. > > -- > Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California > General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 8:59 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Afshin, I have to speak against this publicly.... You might want to note that on news.groups a regular news.groupie there has defended calling for NO vote campaigns.... Susan Maneck has now posted at least four separate messages on AOL calling for a NO vote. Please keep this note between us confidential. I'm sure you can appreciate that Bahais will once again use anything they can against me and talk.religion.bahai Fred -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca To: Dave Cornejo Cc: FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 8:08 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote > >Dear Sir, > >May I remind you that this campaigning was exactly how trb has failed in >the past. I wonder why the same standard is not applied. Besides, how can >you identify which votes came for what reason? And finally as you are >aware, I did this because I saw that bahais and especially Susan Maneck >had already campaigned for a no vote and nothing was said or done about >it. Oh yeah, I don't see what is wrong with campaigning - after all - the >whole idea of voting is to see who is intereste in the newsgroup no? So >what is wrong with giving people all information so that they can vote >with knowledge. > >Thanks. > >Afshin Afrashteh > >On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Dave Cornejo wrote: > >> I am the vote taker for this proposal. >> >> You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several >> newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of >> your solicitation violates the guidelines. >> >> Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility >> of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having >> come from this solicitation will be cancelled. >> >> I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their >> comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. >> >> -- >> Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >> General Magician & Registered Be Developer >> > > ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:42 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave Cornejo wrote: > > I am the vote taker for this proposal. > > You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several > newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of > your solicitation violates the guidelines. > > Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility > of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having > come from this solicitation will be cancelled. > > I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their > comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. > > -- > Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California > General Magician & Registered Be Developer Dear Dave and fellow proponents, I can't add anything enlightening to this situation, since I don't fully understand all the issues and factors involved. I can say that I think the situation surrounding this vote has become very messy. Again, I apologize for an action of mine which may have aggrevated the situation, i.e., notifying the proponents of Susan's plan by forwarding her actual email rather than just telling of the actions she was considering...the latter would have been more ethical and more prudent, but may not have changed things much in the long run. Anyway, I'm pretty confused and turned off by the latest round of insult hurling. I have to say Fred, I think it would have passed if you had just kept quiet between the posting of the CFV and the end of the voting period. On the other hand, you never know. For what it's worth, it would be fine with me to declare the voting process violated (a mistrial, as it were), if that is something that is done. Then, I'm outta here. -Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:19 PM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote It's occurs to me maybe I should mention that the first Bahai NO vote campaign was waged largely on Bahai-only BCCA mailing lists by a Bahai named Mark Towfiq: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm Since the Bahais kicked me off those lists in the middle of 2nd vote for revealing they were then attacking the proposal for a second time, I have no idea what's taking place on them now but feel it's quite likely the same things are happening. For archived BCCA samples see https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/archive.htm Especially https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/BCCA.txt Where I tried to reason, appeal, and plead with the BCCA to stop letting Bahais use the private lists to crush talk.religion.bahai. I don't doubt that Maneck or someone else is probably using them again.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca To: Dave Cornejo Cc: FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 8:08 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote > >Dear Sir, > >May I remind you that this campaigning was exactly how trb has failed in >the past. I wonder why the same standard is not applied. Besides, how can >you identify which votes came for what reason? And finally as you are >aware, I did this because I saw that bahais and especially Susan Maneck >had already campaigned for a no vote and nothing was said or done about >it. Oh yeah, I don't see what is wrong with campaigning - after all - the >whole idea of voting is to see who is intereste in the newsgroup no? So >what is wrong with giving people all information so that they can vote >with knowledge. > >Thanks. > >Afshin Afrashteh > >On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Dave Cornejo wrote: > >> I am the vote taker for this proposal. >> >> You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several >> newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of >> your solicitation violates the guidelines. >> >> Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility >> of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having >> come from this solicitation will be cancelled. >> >> I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their >> comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. >> >> -- >> Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >> General Magician & Registered Be Developer >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:26 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Fran et al.... There's no mistrial, just Bahai community life as ususal.... The best thing you and others could do is denounce BOTH yes and no campaigners on news.groups. Maneck's a puppet and probably being advised by some hack somewhere to do this. Don't worry about her. AOL has her figured out, by the way.... What's she's now doing is actually backfiring and helping the vote. You did the right thing by sharing her deceitful little piece of demagoguery with all of us.... Most people can see through the "it's all Fred's fault" excuse.... The Center of All Evil.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: Dave Cornejo Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:38 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >Dave Cornejo wrote: >> >> I am the vote taker for this proposal. >> >> You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several >> newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of >> your solicitation violates the guidelines. >> >> Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility >> of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having >> come from this solicitation will be cancelled. >> >> I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their >> comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. >> >> -- >> Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >> General Magician & Registered Be Developer > > >Dear Dave and fellow proponents, > >I can't add anything enlightening to this situation, since I don't fully >understand all the issues and factors involved. I can say that I think >the situation surrounding this vote has become very messy. Again, I >apologize for an action of mine which may have aggrevated the situation, >i.e., notifying the proponents of Susan's plan by forwarding her actual >email rather than just telling of the actions she was considering...the >latter would have been more ethical and more prudent, but may not have >changed things much in the long run. Anyway, I'm pretty confused and >turned off by the latest round of insult hurling. I have to say Fred, I >think it would have passed if you had just kept quiet between the >posting of the CFV and the end of the voting period. On the other hand, >you never know. > >For what it's worth, it would be fine with me to declare the voting >process violated (a mistrial, as it were), if that is something that is >done. Then, I'm outta here. > >-Fran > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:28 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Just occurred to me, Fran, you might not have realized Dave Cornejo was referring to the Muslim Afshin who has posted a YES vote message to a couple of Muslim newsgroups.... Cornejo was definitely not referring to you or Susan. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: Dave Cornejo Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:38 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >Dave Cornejo wrote: >> >> I am the vote taker for this proposal. >> >> You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several >> newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of >> your solicitation violates the guidelines. >> >> Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility >> of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having >> come from this solicitation will be cancelled. >> >> I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their >> comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. >> >> -- >> Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >> General Magician & Registered Be Developer > > >Dear Dave and fellow proponents, > >I can't add anything enlightening to this situation, since I don't fully >understand all the issues and factors involved. I can say that I think >the situation surrounding this vote has become very messy. Again, I >apologize for an action of mine which may have aggrevated the situation, >i.e., notifying the proponents of Susan's plan by forwarding her actual >email rather than just telling of the actions she was considering...the >latter would have been more ethical and more prudent, but may not have >changed things much in the long run. Anyway, I'm pretty confused and >turned off by the latest round of insult hurling. I have to say Fred, I >think it would have passed if you had just kept quiet between the >posting of the CFV and the end of the voting period. On the other hand, >you never know. > >For what it's worth, it would be fine with me to declare the voting >process violated (a mistrial, as it were), if that is something that is >done. Then, I'm outta here. > >-Fran > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 4:24 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Glaysher wrote: > >> Is there anything else we can do about it? > >Please email him and ask him to stop it. I would like to see an email >from him acknowledging that he has. I would also like him to post to >all the same places he did a message stating that it was improper for >him to post the voting instructions, and that the only legitimate >source for the voting instructions is me. > > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer Afshin, I've posted a message to news.groups requesting everyone stay cool and not call for YES or NO votes. It's got to be fair or the final vote really won't mean anything.... Please consider the votetaker's advice above. It would be best for the proposal if you and others could follow it. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." I ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 4:27 PM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Fw: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave, I've tried but am not too confident anything said is going to receive a welcome from Afshin. I would be very suprised if it did.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Dave Cornejo Cc: house@usq.edu.au ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 4:24 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >Glaysher wrote: >> >>> Is there anything else we can do about it? > >> >>Please email him and ask him to stop it. I would like to see an email >>from him acknowledging that he has. I would also like him to post to >>all the same places he did a message stating that it was improper for >>him to post the voting instructions, and that the only legitimate >>source for the voting instructions is me. >> >> >>-- >>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >>General Magician & Registered Be Developer > >Afshin, > >I've posted a message to news.groups requesting everyone >stay cool and not call for YES or NO votes. It's got to be fair or >the final vote really won't mean anything.... Please consider the >votetaker's advice above. It would be best for the proposal if you >and others could follow it. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > >I > ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 1:05 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: dave@dogwood.com; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote I have heard what I need to hear and unless anybody has any objections will consider this matter closed for the time being. Rest assured that any actions I take will be properly documented and justified. -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca[SMTP:afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 12:32 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Peace, I wrote an email to you explaining that that I feel you were wrong about my style of campaiging because I explicitly put a link to your CFV in my post. In anycase, I have heard you. IN my latest posts I have asked people to email you or to read the CFV for voting instructions. However it needs to be said that if by any chance you have felt the prerogative to cancel votes we expect to see a list of such votes cancelled and the REASONS why you felt those particular votes were due whatever reason. Thanks for your time. Yours Sincerely, Afshin Afrashteh ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:33 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Dave, > > Is it possible also to weed out any NO votes that may come from > Susan Maneck's demagoguery? > > I've asked everyone on news.groups to refrain from any appeals > for votes, yes or no.... as i said in my other email - unless i have evidence of her violating the rules, she is free to campaign all she likes... -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:31 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; house@usq.edu.au; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Thanks for bringing the Afshin's infraction to our notice. In terms of > Susan Maneck's urging Bahais to vote NO, is there anything that can > also be done? > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." Provided she doesn't send out any part of the CFV or solicits from people who wouldn't reasonably have access to the newsgroup, no. She is subject to the same rules as you are in campaigning and infractions will be dealt with in a similar fashion... -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:18 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Thanks for bringing the Afshin's infraction to our notice. In terms of Susan Maneck's urging Bahais to vote NO, is there anything that can also be done? Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: dave@dogwood.com ; FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 5:37 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >I have heard what I need to hear and unless anybody has any objections >will consider this matter closed for the time being. Rest assured >that any actions I take will be properly documented and justified. > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:23 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: house@usq.edu.au; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave, Is it possible also to weed out any NO votes that may come from Susan Maneck's demagoguery? I've asked everyone on news.groups to refrain from any appeals for votes, yes or no.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca To: Dave Cornejo Cc: FG@hotmail.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 12:32 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote > >Peace, > >I wrote an email to you explaining that that I feel you were wrong about >my style of campaiging because I explicitly put a link to your CFV in my >post. In anycase, I have heard you. IN my latest posts I have asked people >to email you or to read the CFV for voting instructions. However it needs >to be said that if by any chance you have felt the prerogative to cancel >votes we expect to see a list of such votes cancelled and the REASONS why >you felt those particular votes were due whatever reason. Thanks for your >time. > >Yours Sincerely, > >Afshin Afrashteh > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:40 AM To: Dave Cornejo; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes A 4th violation has taken place calling for YES votes and not presenting people with less than the full CFV. I denounce all attempts to sway the vote to YES or NO.... Please refrain from such actions. I am accused below of having been the impetus behind this development which I categorically deny. A fair-minded reading of my messages at the links below will perceive that, while I do agree with the people concerned that it would be in Muslims best interest to understand and support talk.religion.bahai, I do not in any way whatsoever call for violating voting guidelines as has been done. It must be remember that Muslims have as much right to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai as anyone else, if, as with anyone else, it is done in accordance with the rules. We should not allow current events to cloud our eyes.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." kohli@mail.ameritel.net wrote in message <759dk5$a86$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r28@chronicle.concentric.net>... >> > >> >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup >> >proposal. >> >> The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's >> called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway >> the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a >> fair manner. >> > >I can show you a "yes" call using Dejanews at: >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422694920&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT EX >T=9 13847770.201588948&HIT_CONTEXT=913847631.203096240&hitnum=0 > >It would appear that someone is appealing to Muslims to vote in this matter in >accordance w/ a religous interest. > >I can show you where the idea for such a religious based "yes" call came from: > >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416796153&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT EXT=9 >13848120.201523472&HIT_CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&HIT_NUM=49&hitnum=5 > "I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best > interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai." > > >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417100020&CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&h itnum >=97 > "And this is why you and other Muslims really should help > create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith > --talk.religion.bahai" > >Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as well, at >this time? > >Since it appears that a Baha'i may have suggested this call for a "Yes" vote, >will you note his activities in the updates to "the Baha'i Technique"? Will >you again blame the Baha'is at large if you are not happy with the outcome of >the vote, or will you single out this individual for special attention as an >obstacle to the formation of t.r.b.? > >I think they could be considered an obstacle. > >v/r >Pat > > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:40 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes A 4th violation has taken place calling for YES votes and not presenting people with less than the full CFV. I denounce all attempts to sway the vote to YES or NO.... Please refrain from such actions. I am accused below of having been the impetus behind this development which I categorically deny. A fair-minded reading of my messages at the links below will perceive that, while I do agree with the people concerned that it would be in Muslims best interest to understand and support talk.religion.bahai, I do not in any way whatsoever call for violating voting guidelines as has been done. It must be remember that Muslims have as much right to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai as anyone else, if, as with anyone else, it is done in accordance with the rules. We should not allow current events to cloud our eyes.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." kohli@mail.ameritel.net wrote in message <759dk5$a86$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r28@chronicle.concentric.net>... >> > >> >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup >> >proposal. >> >> The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's >> called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway >> the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a >> fair manner. >> > >I can show you a "yes" call using Dejanews at: >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422694920&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT EX >T=9 13847770.201588948&HIT_CONTEXT=913847631.203096240&hitnum=0 > >It would appear that someone is appealing to Muslims to vote in this matter in >accordance w/ a religous interest. > >I can show you where the idea for such a religious based "yes" call came from: > >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416796153&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT EXT=9 >13848120.201523472&HIT_CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&HIT_NUM=49&hitnum=5 > "I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best > interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai." > > >https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417100020&CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&h itnum >=97 > "And this is why you and other Muslims really should help > create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith > --talk.religion.bahai" > >Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as well, at >this time? > >Since it appears that a Baha'i may have suggested this call for a "Yes" vote, >will you note his activities in the updates to "the Baha'i Technique"? Will >you again blame the Baha'is at large if you are not happy with the outcome of >the vote, or will you single out this individual for special attention as an >obstacle to the formation of t.r.b.? > >I think they could be considered an obstacle. > >v/r >Pat > > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:47 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: Kavosh Soltani Subject: Fw: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes I have to denounce this on news.groups because the CFV was distributed only in part. Please don't confuse that with any opposition to Muslims voting their consciences. The Bahai who has posted this to news.groups is attempting to give Bahais an excuse for voting NO and has opposed talk.religion.bahai all along if you skim through her messages on alt.religion.bahai. Afshin, I know you have the longest historical memory here, and I trust you know what's really going on.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:40 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes >A 4th violation has taken place calling for YES votes and not >presenting people with less than the full CFV. > >I denounce all attempts to sway the vote to YES or NO.... >Please refrain from such actions. > >I am accused below of having been the impetus behind this >development which I categorically deny. A fair-minded reading >of my messages at the links below will perceive that, while I do >agree with the people concerned that it would be in Muslims >best interest to understand and support talk.religion.bahai, I do >not in any way whatsoever call for violating voting guidelines >as has been done. It must be remember that Muslims have as >much right to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai as anyone else, >if, as with anyone else, it is done in accordance with the rules. > >We should not allow current events to cloud our eyes.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > > >kohli@mail.ameritel.net wrote in message ><759dk5$a86$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>In article <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com>, >> "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >>> >>> Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r28@chronicle.concentric.net>... >>> > >>> >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup >>> >proposal. >>> >>> The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's >>> called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway >>> the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a >>> fair manner. >>> >> >>I can show you a "yes" call using Dejanews at: >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422694920&search=thread&threaded=1&CON T >EX >>T=9 13847770.201588948&HIT_CONTEXT=913847631.203096240&hitnum=0 >> >>It would appear that someone is appealing to Muslims to vote in this matter >in >>accordance w/ a religous interest. >> >>I can show you where the idea for such a religious based "yes" call came >from: >> >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416796153&search=thread&threaded=1&CON T >EXT=9 >>13848120.201523472&HIT_CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&HIT_NUM=49&hitnum=5 >> "I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best >> interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai." >> >> >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417100020&CONTEXT=913847750.202965186& h >itnum >>=97 >> "And this is why you and other Muslims really should help >> create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith >> --talk.religion.bahai" >> >>Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as well, at >>this time? >> >>Since it appears that a Baha'i may have suggested this call for a "Yes" >vote, >>will you note his activities in the updates to "the Baha'i Technique"? Will >>you again blame the Baha'is at large if you are not happy with the outcome >of >>the vote, or will you single out this individual for special attention as >an >>obstacle to the formation of t.r.b.? >> >>I think they could be considered an obstacle. >> >>v/r >>Pat >> >> >>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: AOL Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should NOT be made Message Board Manager Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should NOT be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/16/1998 7:12:29 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher To: ShawnnaT CC: Fglaysher Shawnna T Office of the Chairman Dear Shawnna, Thank you for acknowledging my message to Mr. Case. I appreciate your re-routing it to the appropriate person as AOL and I look forward to hearing from him or her. Since my original message to you efforts by some Bahais to use the AOL forums to undermine the Usenet system of interest polling on talk.religion.bahai have only increased, especially by Susan Maneck. It's a very complicated situation with a long and tulmultous history on AOL. I trust the person you're referring me to will have the patience and tenacity to help improve the Bahai Forums. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ------ Subj: Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should be made Message Board Manager Date: 12/15/1998 9:43:39 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Steve Case To: Fglaysher Dear fglaysher, I am responding to your letter on behalf of Steve Case. Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We appreciate member feedback because it is the best way for us to know what we are doing right -- and what we could do better. I have passed your comments to the appropriate person at America Online. Please feel free to write us again at any time. Sincerely, Shawnna T Office of the Chairman ------------------------- Dear Mr. Case: The continuing serious negelect of the Bahai Forums would not be solved in the best interest of all AOL members by appointing Susan Maneck. My experience with her on a scholar mailing list h-bahai at the University of Michigan and her recent attacks on the creation of talk.religion.bahai on Usenet convince me that she would not be a fair arbiter. She has recently threatened to violate Usenet interest poll custom by calling for a NO vote against the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.bahai, which has been defeated in the past by a massive NO vote campaign mounted by other Bahais in a similar fashion: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm I hope you will help find a solution to prevent another such Bahai from having control over the free speech and conscience of AOL members. Specifically she has continued to ignore my and others' concerns about 3 key areas. I've clipped them out of the REVISED PETITION: alt.religion.bahai and any new future newsgroups on the Bahai Faith, such as talk.religion.bahai, should it pass, ought to be added to the list of available Newsgroups under Bahai Libraries should finally function and accept all postings to them of any point of view uncensored by the Forum Leader. Such web sites as Frederick Glaysher's The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience should be added to Links https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm and any other link suggested by an AOL member ought to be automatically added to the list and not censored for religious reasons. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: FG@hotmail.com ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu ; smaneck@stetson.edu ; rdsteph@ibm.net Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] >Resending this to all due to a typo I made in Susan's email address. >--Fran > >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Sorry, Susan, but sometimes an appeal to courtesy is not appropriate. >> I have to let my coproponents know what you are planning to do. >> I can't believe you are letting a personality conflict resulting >> from a passionate disagreement color your judgment in what is >> essentially a human rights issue. You have crossed a line here. >> >> --Fran >> >> PS Who is rdsteph@ibm.net? Hi, whoever you are! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: talk.religion.bahai >> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:28 -0500 >> From: "Susan Maneck " >> To: rdsteph@ibm.net >> CC: Fran Baker >> >> Dear Ron and Fran, >> >> I am seriously contemplating calling for a "no" vote on >> talk.religion.bahai. I wanted to contact you first and explain to you >> my rationale because I know this is something you have both >> worked hard for. In the past I have not participated in the votes at >> all. I wouldn't vote for it because I wanted nothing to do with a list >> promoted by Fred and I felt that there ought to be the requisite >> number of 150 truly interested individuals to form it. On the other >> hand, I would not vote now because I thought it wrong because I >> did not think that an unmoderated list should be opposed in >> principle. Now, however, I find the manner in which Fred is going >> about seeking to establish this list to be more than I can stomach >> and publicly calling for a "no" vote appears to be the only way to >> register the extent of our outrage against this kind of behaviour. >> What I refer to specifically is the campaign of slander and calumny >> against not only the Institutions, but against myself and the Bahai >> Studies list. As you know, he accuses this list and me of >> censorship, which you yourself know is not true. He is also trying >> to prevent my managing the Baha'i Message Board of AOL for the >> same reason. He constantly spams that Board making any >> genuine discussions virtually impossible. >> >> I'm going to sit on this a couple of days and give myself a cooling >> off period before taking any action, but I've really had it "up to here" >> with this jerk. >> >> Please do me the courtesy of not forwarding this message to Fred >> (although you may convey my sentiments and my intentions). I do >> not care to see it up in his website tomorrow. >> >> warmest, Susan ---------- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca[SMTP:afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:45 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Kavosh Soltani Subject: Re: Fw: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes Peace Frederick, I am very interested in what exactly the votetaker intends to do with the votes already cast as YES in the last couple of days. If he cancels arbitrarily because of a name "sounding" muslim or just because a YES vote came in the last couple of days then there will be hell to pay.I thought you should know that the votetaker has disqualified me from the vote taking process and so I guess my YES vote has been thrown out. Is that within his mandate? PS - don't worry. I know what you're saying in public condemning all campaiging is what you unfortunately have to say. I completely understand. Afshin Afrashteh On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I have to denounce this on news.groups because the CFV was > distributed only in part. Please don't confuse that with any opposition > to Muslims voting their consciences. The Bahai who has posted this > to news.groups is attempting to give Bahais an excuse for voting > NO and has opposed talk.religion.bahai all along if you skim > through her messages on alt.religion.bahai. > > Afshin, I know you have the longest historical memory here, and I > trust you know what's really going on.... > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: FG > Newsgroups: news.groups > Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:40 AM > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes > > > >A 4th violation has taken place calling for YES votes and not > >presenting people with less than the full CFV. > > > >I denounce all attempts to sway the vote to YES or NO.... > >Please refrain from such actions. > > > >I am accused below of having been the impetus behind this > >development which I categorically deny. A fair-minded reading > >of my messages at the links below will perceive that, while I do > >agree with the people concerned that it would be in Muslims > >best interest to understand and support talk.religion.bahai, I do > >not in any way whatsoever call for violating voting guidelines > >as has been done. It must be remember that Muslims have as > >much right to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai as anyone else, > >if, as with anyone else, it is done in accordance with the rules. > > > >We should not allow current events to cloud our eyes.... > > > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > >ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > >or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." > > > > > > > > > > > >kohli@mail.ameritel.net wrote in message > ><759dk5$a86$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >>In article <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com>, > >> "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > >>> > >>> Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r28@chronicle.concentric.net>... > >>> > > >>> >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup > >>> >proposal. > >>> > >>> The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's > >>> called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway > >>> the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a > >>> fair manner. > >>> > >> > >>I can show you a "yes" call using Dejanews at: > >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422694920&search=thread&threaded=1&CON > T > >EX > >>T=9 13847770.201588948&HIT_CONTEXT=913847631.203096240&hitnum=0 > >> > >>It would appear that someone is appealing to Muslims to vote in this > matter > >in > >>accordance w/ a religous interest. > >> > >>I can show you where the idea for such a religious based "yes" call came > >from: > >> > >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416796153&search=thread&threaded=1&CON > T > >EXT=9 > >>13848120.201523472&HIT_CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&HIT_NUM=49&hitnum=5 > >> "I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best > >> interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai." > >> > >> > >>https://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417100020&CONTEXT=913847750.202965186& > h > >itnum > >>=97 > >> "And this is why you and other Muslims really should help > >> create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith > >> --talk.religion.bahai" > >> > >>Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as well, at > >>this time? > >> > >>Since it appears that a Baha'i may have suggested this call for a "Yes" > >vote, > >>will you note his activities in the updates to "the Baha'i Technique"? > Will > >>you again blame the Baha'is at large if you are not happy with the outcome > >of > >>the vote, or will you single out this individual for special attention as > >an > >>obstacle to the formation of t.r.b.? > >> > >>I think they could be considered an obstacle. > >> > >>v/r > >>Pat > >> > >> > >>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:54 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: Kavosh Soltani Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - 4th violation - call for YES votes Here's a comment by the votetaker that you might find helpful. Please keep it confidential. I'm not sure I should share it with you but it seems as though it might help you understand campaigning is okay as long as you provide or send people to the full CFV or direct them to Dave Cornejo the votetaker. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com ; house@usq.edu.au ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 1:36 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Dave, >> >> Is it possible also to weed out any NO votes that may come from >> Susan Maneck's demagoguery? >> >> I've asked everyone on news.groups to refrain from any appeals >> for votes, yes or no.... > >as i said in my other email - unless i have evidence of her violating >the rules, she is free to campaign all she likes... > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:23 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Susan Maneck; John Walker; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Susan Maneck's a liar and a deceitful bitch. > > I mistakenly defended her against a similar charge > by Juan Cole early this summer. How foolish of me.... > I don't think any purpose is being served by trading insults in this fashion. Susan sent me a copy of the post by you, Fred, in which she detected your 'slander', and, try as I might, I could find none in it. However, the post was written in a provocative and confrontational fashion, so I conclude that Susan misread what you actually said. As a result, it seems that the two of you have upped the ante at each post, until neither of you can see any good whatever in the other. A few things, however, are clear: (1) It has nothing to do with TRB; the fact that Fred is one of five proponents gives no one the right to campaign to overturn the votes of at least 100 people that will be needed to pass TRB. (2) This illustrates one reason why many people are fearful of a free public newsgroup. But when the real NG starts, I'll be arguing for strong standards of courtesy and dispassionate discussion of concrete issues. I think lots of people will be around who will object to these kinds of slanging matches; there are so many real issues to discuss, it is a great shame to waste energy on this sort of thing. (3) Fred and Susan have very similar personalities. ...Now ducking for cover rapidly... see you both (if I am not persona non grata) after my holiday! :-) -- 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, December 17, 1998 9:42 PM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Cc: Dave Cornejo; FG@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > May I remind you that this campaigning was exactly how trb has failed in > the past. I wonder why the same standard is not applied. Besides, how can > you identify which votes came for what reason? And finally as you are > aware, I did this because I saw that bahais and especially Susan Maneck > had already campaigned for a no vote and nothing was said or done about > it. Oh yeah, I don't see what is wrong with campaigning - after all - the > whole idea of voting is to see who is intereste in the newsgroup no? So > what is wrong with giving people all information so that they can vote > with knowledge. I certainly agree with Afshin's point about the difference between the treatment of yes and no campaigns. But it seems to be a property of this system, not of anything specifically rigged against TRB. In the first interest poll, a huge and secret 'wildfire' campaign was run on private lists to collect 591 no votes. The proposal would have passed on that occasion if the no vote had been the usual 20, 30, or 40. Despite its obvious illegitimacy, the no votes were not cancelled. I suspect Afshin didn't know about the rules, and I also suspect that Susan Maneck doesn't know that campaigns for no votes are not allowed. Perhaps these events counterbalance each other? As for Afshin's final question, as I understand it, all campaigning should be duplicated to news.groups, and be conducted in the prevote phase. (Of course, the no campaign only started AFTER the discussion period ended, which makes it hard to respond to!) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 4:31 PM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: baha'i censorship (was Re: O MUSLIM! Do your duty!) Afshin, Please don't let anybody know it, but I agree with everything you say here, especially your comparing the srb charter to what their actual practice is. They're clearly violating it in a number of ways by banning so much. For two or three months now, a number of people have been discussing via email the possibility of rmgrouping srb if this vote is ram-rodded too. I personally am all for it because after three attempts with srb banning all mention of trb it's quite obvious srb doesn't deserve to exist and a fair poll can only take place on Usenet that they have no control over. Fred -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,uk.religion.islam Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 1:23 PM Subject: baha'i censorship (was Re: O MUSLIM! Do your duty!) >Peace be upon those that seek true guidance, > > > >In article <75b0rk$j4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > r.woodlock@bigfoot.com wrote: >> Bismillahi arraHman arraHeem, >> >> I am supposing that most of you (readers) will have a modicum of sense and >> know that when someone is an avowed opponent of something, their opinion is >> hardly going to be unbiased. Therefore we must always check out the facts >> they claim. >> > >And I would suppose the readers (especially muslims who are being addressed to >here) would have a modicum of sense to understand that an avowed baha'i >missionary like you would have reason to make baha'is look good. > >Lets examine the facts shall we ? > >1) The proponents of this talk.religion.bahai are BAHA'is and EX-BAHA'is NOT >muslims 2)talk.religion.bahai was proposed because many, many people had >complained of of the censorship at soc.religion.bahai. These people included >baha'is, ex-baha'is, buddhists, muslims, christians etc 3) There is a partial >archive of censored messages found at : >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm 4) Censored messages by >definition won't be found in dejanews.com archives so saying that a COUPLE of >muslim message (most of them relatively inocous compared to the articles that >have been rejected that were by me, Kavosh and other muslims) exist only goes >to show that the moderators of soc.religion.bahai are not total idiots. By >allowing a couple here and there (not the juicy posts) they will try to fool >others with a deceptive disguise of fairness 5) Frederick Glaysher has been >censored at srb for having a LINK (i.e http:/www.whatever.com)that has >ANOTHER LINK to web-sites the moderators don't like (one of them being mine) >. Infact the moderators changed the whole policy of srb for this reason. >Check this out: > >************************** >From: srb-mods@bcca.org >Subject: Moderator's Notice >Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:59 AM > >Moderators' Notice: > >As some signature files contain advertising, which is against the >charter for this newsgroup, the moderators have decided that only a >subscriber's name and a return e-mail address will be allowed in >signatures. Longer signatures will be truncated. >*********************** > >6) Lets look at the charter of soc.religion.bahai for what is ACCEPTABLE (in >addition to the above added condition)(also remember - the moderators take >EXTREME liberty in interpreting what is and isn't acceptable) : > >*************** >MODERATOR POLICIES > >o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a > decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet > respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks > (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory > attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use > offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only > the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. > >o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i > Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual > Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in > determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. > >o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, > unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should > paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib > Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." > >o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority > outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This > does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate > the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. > >o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a > book reference) may also be rejected. > >o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who > can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude > anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. > >o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. > The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying > remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise > ratio. >****************** > >wow!!! If this is what they openly admit to doing then you can imagine how >much they are censoring behind the scenes. > >Here's what the charter of soc.religion.islam says about what is acceptable : > >************** >a) relevant to Islam >b) free from verbal abuse, name calling, and insults > >************** 7) alt.religion.bahai is NOT readily accessible as Rachel >claims and a web-based service like dejanews.com is a) not available to >everyone b) slow and unreliable and sometimes even incomplete . Besides why >won't soc.religion.bahai switch places with alt.religion.bahai if its no >problem ? > > >8) In the last 2 attempts it was baha'is who voted NO to its creation and >mostly muslims and a few liberal baha'is and ex-baha'is who voted yes. You >would think the baha'is would be happy to have an extra forum. You would >think that baha'i missionaries like Rachel and Abir would be ecstatic to have >another forum but we find them the most vocal opponents. > >9) This issue of duplicity of alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.bahai is a >sham for the bahais to have an excuse to vote no on "technical" grounds. If >talk.religion.bahai is created alt.religion.bahai can be scrapped for all we >care. The issue is propagation of the newsgroup not the name > >10)Rachel in her posted ADMITTED that the baha'is vote no because they are >afraid their faith will be "denigrated". > >11)soc.religion.islam has allowed Jochen katz to post articles so attacking >Islam that muslims have called for new moderators..and yet the moderators >remain objective and fair. In contrast the moderators of soc.religion.bahai >have acted in such a way as to infuriate non-baha'is and some baha'is for >their blatant violation of their rights. > >Finally ask yourself, dear brothers and sisters....is all this hot air? Would >brothers like me and kavosh and others and these baha'is and ex-baha'is and >jews who are advocating the creation of talk.religion.bahai doing all this >because there is nothing substantive in what we have to say? Would this >proposal be going now for its 3rd attempt to be created (and probably 3rd >time baha'is would vote it down) if there was nothing there? Are we crazy? > >Check out https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm and see what over 20 >non-muslims have experienced. This archive doesn't even include mine's and >kavosh's postings that have been rejected. Are we all making this up? > >It seems more like soc.religion.bahai moderators and their cronies have a >motive in hiding the truth from you. Don't let them sugar-coat this for you >and don't be fooled by this Rachel coming and saying stuff like "bismillahi >a-rahmani ar-rahim". She is no muslim.. she's a full blown baha'i missionary >with a specific agenda. > > >Vote dear brothers and sisters for if this fails and another year passes even >more souls might be lost to bahaism. > >I might add that because of my campaiging the votetaker has disqualified me >from voting so I am counting even more on my brothers and sisters! > >Here's how to vote: > >1) Email vote@dogwood.com and ask for the voting intructions OR 2) Read the >CFV (Call For Votes) posted by the votetaker at : >https://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=420102929 3) Spread the action alert to >muslim mailing lists you are on and other brothers and sisters you privately >know > >Remember voting ends by Dec 24th so there isn't much time > >Also learn more about the bahai faith at my website and start doing to baha'is >you personally know or on the NET : > >Answering Bahaullah >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm > >May ALLAH swt reward in this effort and RAMADAN mubarak beloved brothers and >sisters! > >Afshin Afrashteh > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 4:53 PM Subject: Re: AOL Bahai Forums - Why Susan Maneck should NOT be made Message Board Manager In terms of Maneck's campaign, the votetaker has provided the proponents with this advice: ------- Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Thanks for bringing the Afshin's infraction to our notice. In terms of > Susan Maneck's urging Bahais to vote NO, is there anything that can > also be done? > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter > ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." Provided she doesn't send out any part of the CFV or solicits from people who wouldn't reasonably have access to the newsgroup, no. She is subject to the same rules as you are in campaigning and infractions will be dealt with in a similar fashion... -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 5:01 PM To: MahdeeOne@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai/Muslim You might want to take a peek at what other Muslims are saying in regard to the present interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on alt.religion.bahai or most of the Muslim newsgroups. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 9:09 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: Where's Walker? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > John's never picked up the ball. He's never posted > a single message on any public forum relating to > trb. I highly doubt he has any sincere desire to see > trb created.... He certainly has never demonstrated > any.... > Fred, you're being idiotic. There are enough real problem around without beating up a completely imaginary one. If you insult people for not helping you ENOUGH, then they might decide not to help you at all. I know John's lending just his name has given many Baha'is pause to reconsider the whole argument. -- 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, December 17, 1998 9:34 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca; FG@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote Dave Cornejo wrote: > > I am the vote taker for this proposal. > > You recently posted a solicitation for yes votes to several > newsgroups. While campaigning for votes is allowable, the form of > your solicitation violates the guidelines. > > Note that by doing this you have severely endangered the possibility > of this proposal passing. Any votes that I can identify as having > come from this solicitation will be cancelled. > > I am CC'ing this to the proponents for the proposal. I await their > comment on your actions before deciding how to proceed from here. I am happy to rely on Dave's good sense in investigating the matter and finding an appropriate solution. -- 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: Friday, December 18, 1998 12:16 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: The Talk.Religion.Bahai Interest Poll has begun. Greetings, Frederick. If you are well, it is well. I remain very busy, and I still owe you some comment. The reality is that I have moved on. When I saw everything from a Baha'i perspective I acted accordingly. I exerted all my effort in what I considered the most effective way to achieve the most essential goals. When the Universal House of Justice demonstrated that its purpose was to remain a dictatorial and unethical institution, when they declared that I was not a Baha'i, then, I assessed not merely my status within a Baha'i context, but the context itself. I do not find fault with anyone who strives, as I did, to effect change within the context. You are to be highly praised for your efforts and your intent. My present analysis is that the Baha'i Faith, because of its attempt to provide an over-arching system, its absolutist language on authority and the quite imperfect and undemocratic individuals rising to positions of power, could be a very dangerous thing. Further, my understanding is that the most effective response to this danger is to allow the Baha'i Faith to collapse on its own. The system is designed to flourish if attacked. I will leave it alone. I will not provide it any publicity which could bring it to the attention of those whose support for democracy and human rights are too weak to deter them from enlisting under its banner and backing the existing policies of its current leadership. The Baha'i experience has greatly influenced my understanding of the benefits of absolute power in any form. I do not accept any present institution, past historical figure or even any god as having absolute power. My present realization is that monotheism itself is illegitimate and Abraham, Moses and Jesus, as all who have sought or been represented as having sought to assert hegemony over human perception of the divine, were incorrect. In this light, I am growing in my attraction to the way of thinking, belief and worship of my ancestors, prior to the arrival of monotheism. Pagan gods in their number and diversity, as well as in their avoidance of insistence on absolute perfection, are more in tune with the needs of human beings. Humans are not slaves to receive orders requiring unthinking obedience. We have personal responsibility for ethical action. I write this on one of my Holy Days, the Feast of the Goddess Epona. Blessings be upon you and yours this day and all days. And, whatever personal perceptions you may have of these issues, may you at least understand that I do sincerely think and feel now as I have explained above. And from my perception it is not such a bad thing at all if the vote goes against TRB, and an avenue of drawing something potentially quite dangerous to those of a like mindset does not come into being. And if you win, may all the gods bless the efforts to transform this religious system into one truly tolerant and able to benefit the human species. Fare ever Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 18, 1998 4:30 PM To: FewWhoFind@aol.com Cc: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Re: FROM TRUEBEREAN TO FRED True, Yes, it's called "review," known as censorship by the rest of the world.... There has been much discussion and upheaval over it all ready, much of which you'll find documented on my website. Look at the Assorted Controversial Documents and under Juan Cole for starters, if you're interested. Fred ---------- From: Russ Allbery[SMTP:rra@stanford.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 19, 1998 1:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Dave Cornejo; Bill Aten; group-advice@isc.org Subject: Re: Fw: [Fwd: talk.religion.bahai] Frederick Glaysher writes: > It occurs to me I should perhaps ask your advice too, especially since > this was done during the first vote with such devastating impact: FYI, mail to group-advice@isc.org reaches more people than just David. And while I suppose we appreciate the thought behind this, once a votetaker has been assigned and the vote is in progress, they're the ones who maintain the integrity of the vote and deal with potential abuses. If they have severe problems or need help from the rest of us, they can certainly ask and we will help out, but so long as they feel like they have a handle on what to do, I think it's the general feeling of all of us that they're in possession of the pertinent facts and are quite capable of handling their responsibilities without our interference. Given that, I don't think that cc'ing group-advice and Bill on every one of these potential complaints is accomplishing anything useful. Instead, I recommend you supply Dave with what information you feel he should have (keeping in mind that the less e-mail he has to read and deal with, the more time he has to deal with the vote itself) and then let him do his volunteer job. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) news.announce.newgroups moderation team member ---------- From: News Administrator[SMTP:usenet@tahina.priv.at] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 1998 10:15 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Automatic reply to your test message. This message has been generated automatically in order to help you track the circulation in the test newsgroups. If you do not wish any reply from this program, just include the words "no reply" or its translation in french or german in the subject line or in the 5 first lines of the body of your message. Your article was received by tahina.priv.at at Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:15:51 CET by the path tahina.priv.at!news.netizen.com.au!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher Your message travelled on the network during 0 day(s), 1 hour(s), 54 minute(s), 57 second(s) before arriving here. Following headers have been recognized in your message: Path: tahina.priv.at!news.netizen.com.au!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher Newsgroups: alt.test,uk.test,swnet.test,han.test,fr.test,news.test,bofh.test,fj.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.irc,news.groups From: "Frederick Glaysher" Approved: Pedophiles@vszbr.cz Date: 20 Dec 1998 13:20:54 GMT Subject: cmsg cancel <75aqk2$7ll@news3.newsguy.com> Message-ID: Control: cancel <75aqk2$7ll@news3.newsguy.com> Organization: Undocumented Illegal Alien Czech Pedophiles in Denmark Nntp-Posting-Host: ssn.ochin.on.ca Lines: 2 Following headers are present in your message but have not been recognized by the application. This does not necessarily mean that they are not legal: X-No-Archive: Pedophile Pedophile: Barry Bouwsma Pedophiles: Barry Bouwsma & Friends Unrepentant-Pederast: Guy Polis X-Cancelled-By: dritz@primenet.com (David Ritz) Xref: tahina.priv.at control.cancel:83249 The first lines in the body of your message are: -> BARRY BOUWSMA IS A PIMPING PEDOPHILE -> If you have any questions about this software, please send mail to . ---------- From: FG@aol.com[SMTP:FG@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 1998 10:33 AM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: TOS? (Fwd: Automatic reply to your test message.) <> It appears someone may be posting a message using my name and AOL address below. I don't understand how this could have been done and am concerned about it. Can you make sense of this? FG@aol.com -------- ---------- From: News Administrator[SMTP:usenet@tahina.priv.at] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 1998 10:18 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Automatic reply to your test message. This message has been generated automatically in order to help you track the circulation in the test newsgroups. If you do not wish any reply from this program, just include the words "no reply" or its translation in french or german in the subject line or in the 5 first lines of the body of your message. Your article was received by tahina.priv.at at Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:18:58 CET by the path tahina.priv.at!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher Your message travelled on the network during 0 day(s), 1 hour(s), 56 minute(s), 33 second(s) before arriving here. Following headers have been recognized in your message: Path: tahina.priv.at!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher Newsgroups: alt.test,uk.test,swnet.test,han.test,fr.test,news.test,bofh.test,fj.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.irc,news.groups From: "Frederick Glaysher" Approved: Pedophiles@vszbr.cz Date: 20 Dec 1998 13:22:25 GMT Subject: cmsg cancel <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com> Message-ID: Control: cancel <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com> Organization: Undocumented Illegal Alien Czech Pedophiles in Denmark Nntp-Posting-Host: ssn.ochin.on.ca Lines: 2 Following headers are present in your message but have not been recognized by the application. This does not necessarily mean that they are not legal: X-No-Archive: Pedophile Pedophile: Barry Bouwsma Pedophiles: Barry Bouwsma & Friends Unrepentant-Pederast: Guy Polis X-Cancelled-By: dritz@primenet.com (David Ritz) Xref: tahina.priv.at control.cancel:83288 The first lines in the body of your message are: -> BARRY BOUWSMA IS A PIMPING PEDOPHILE -> If you have any questions about this software, please send mail to . ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 1998 11:09 AM To: News Administrator Cc: TOSGeneral@aol.com Subject: Re: Automatic reply to your test message. Someone appears to be impersonating me. I've contacted AOL's TOSGeneral@aol.com and have asked them to figure out what's happening. As a paid subscriber to newsguy.com for more than a year and a half, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could help. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: News Administrator To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, December 20, 1998 2:28 AM Subject: Automatic reply to your test message. >This message has been generated automatically in order to help you track >the circulation in the test newsgroups. If you do not wish any reply from >this program, just include the words "no reply" or its translation in >french or german in the subject line or in the 5 first lines of the >body of your message. > >Your article was received >by tahina.priv.at at Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:15:51 CET by the >path tahina.priv.at!news.netizen.com.au!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.oh io-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.cwix.com!1 30.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet. tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher > >Your message travelled on the network during >0 day(s), 1 hour(s), 54 minute(s), 57 second(s) >before arriving here. > >Following headers have been recognized in your message: > >Path: tahina.priv.at!news.netizen.com.au!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.oh io-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.cwix.com!1 30.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet. tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dritz!hotmail.com!fglaysher >Newsgroups: alt.test,uk.test,swnet.test,han.test,fr.test,news.test,bofh.test,fj.test,new s.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.irc,news.groups >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >Approved: Pedophiles@vszbr.cz >Date: 20 Dec 1998 13:20:54 GMT >Subject: cmsg cancel <75aqk2$7ll@news3.newsguy.com> >Message-ID: >Control: cancel <75aqk2$7ll@news3.newsguy.com> >Organization: Undocumented Illegal Alien Czech Pedophiles in Denmark >Nntp-Posting-Host: ssn.ochin.on.ca >Lines: 2 > >Following headers are present in your message but have not been recognized >by the application. This does not necessarily mean that they are not >legal: > >X-No-Archive: Pedophile >Pedophile: Barry Bouwsma >Pedophiles: Barry Bouwsma & Friends >Unrepentant-Pederast: Guy Polis >X-Cancelled-By: dritz@primenet.com (David Ritz) >Xref: tahina.priv.at control.cancel:83249 > >The first lines in the body of your message are: > >-> BARRY BOUWSMA IS A PIMPING PEDOPHILE >-> > >If you have any questions about this software, please send mail to >. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 8:04 AM To: HMCMESOON Subject: Re: what happened to my posting, Local Authorities? It's this type of thing that has led many to want uncensored sources of information like alt.religion.bahai and now talk.religion.bahai which is presently being voted on. You should be able to find the ballot on alt.religion.bahai or news.announce.newgroups as CFV: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: HMCMESOON Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, December 20, 1998 8:05 PM Subject: what happened to my posting, Local Authorities? > >I want to know, is it common practice for the "lsa" to keep information from >the community?! Our community was recently infromed via newsletter,that an" >lsa-er" was being replaced, with no commentary regarding why. Is this fair? >Have recently learned via the "grapevine" that the former "lsa-er's" >administrative rights were revoked. Don't we deserve to know WHY? >What's the deal? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: fw Re: Demagoguery - The Bahai Technique fyi Subject: Re: Demagoguery - The Bahai Technique Date: 12/18/1998 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981218170023.18468.00001410@ng09.aol.com> >Fred, >A friend of mine received a newsletter of some kind from the Bahai Faith which states that all material published by Bahais about the Bahai Faith must be approved. Have you ever heard of this policy before? >TrueBerean Bahai reviewing policy. That was my beef with the Bahai administration. It's about reviewing committees and the requirements of Bahais to submit they literary and creative works to them for approval and possible censorship (as opposed to mere editing). I never sought their advice for my work (I had good reason not to trust their qualifications to judge my work). They always sought me out once I was faithfully reported by other Bahais. At first, they politely parroted the Bahai review, publishing and distribution policies and expected my total cooperation. When I expressed my dissent, they'd begin marshalling quotations of authority to try bringing me around--followed by subtle intimidation. They never compromised their position or accepted my professional expertise (over their distinct lack of it). In the end, we grew apart. They would eventually ignore me, hoping I would just go away (I finally did, with the exception of my appearances here)--probably like some people hope Fred goes away. The Basis for this disunity (in my case) were statements that Shoghi Effendi had made decades earlier (he wasn't speaking with artistic knowledge), bearing on portrayals of Abdul-Baha and the Bahai holy family. To this day, I absolutely disagree with them on this. They simply didn't know what they were talking about and I was finally ignored into a frustrated silence--which is very destructive. This, for me, was about fallible human beings making bureaucratic life-decisions about things they didn't understand. This isn't a problem exclusive to Bahais--it happens in virtually every big organization at some point. It's a people problem for me--not a Baha'u'llah problem. It was about misguided and irresponsible interpretations of the Bahai administrative and sacred writings--and the blind enforcement of these interpretations. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 8:36 AM Subject: Re: fw Ruletherod Re: Demagoguery - The Bahai Technique It seems to me Rule's point here is well taken: They simply didn't know what they were >talking about and I was finally ignored into a frustrated silence--which is >very destructive. When it comes to any type of scholarly or literary work that truly attempts to probe and break new ground, the freedom of conscience of the writer is absolutely essential. Scholarly and literary history is rife with examples of one generation attempting to suppress the new and progressive views and style of the next wave. Convention and revolt is a literary commonplace that attempts to express this phenomenon of human spiritual evolution.... To suppress such antinomies, as say the Soviets routinely tried to do, only leads the most endowed souls to find other ways or outlets for expressing their God-given conscience, their consciousness of what it means to be a human being, and so on, as in samsidat, now the electronic Internet. Only tyrannical regimes ever feel the need to coerce human conscience--look what happened to Baha'u'llah Himself under the Ottomans.... Predictably, the censors are always the most contemptibly narrow, rigid little characters with no real ability or creativity.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." >Subject: Re: Demagoguery - The Bahai Technique >Date: 12/18/1998 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time >From: Ruletherod >Message-id: <19981218170023.18468.00001410@ng09.aol.com> > >>Fred, > >>A friend of mine received a newsletter of some kind from the Bahai Faith >which >states that all material published by Bahais about the Bahai Faith must be >approved. >Have you ever heard of this policy before? > >>TrueBerean > >Bahai reviewing policy. That was my beef with the Bahai administration. It's >about reviewing committees and the requirements of Bahais to submit they >literary and creative works to them for approval and possible censorship (as >opposed to mere editing). > >I never sought their advice for my work (I had good reason not to trust their >qualifications to judge my work). They always sought me out once I was >faithfully reported by other Bahais. > >At first, they politely parroted the Bahai review, publishing and >distribution policies and expected my total cooperation. When I expressed my >dissent, they'd begin marshalling quotations of authority to try bringing me >around--followed by subtle intimidation. They never compromised their >position or accepted my professional expertise (over their distinct lack of >it). In the end, we grew apart. They would eventually ignore me, hoping I >would >just go away (I finally did, with the exception of my appearances >here)--probably like some people hope Fred goes away. > >The Basis for this disunity (in my case) were statements that Shoghi Effendi >had made decades earlier (he wasn't speaking with artistic knowledge), >bearing on portrayals of Abdul-Baha and the Bahai holy family. To this day, I >absolutely disagree with them on this. They simply didn't know what they were >talking about and I was finally ignored into a frustrated silence--which is >very destructive. > >This, for me, was about fallible human beings making bureaucratic >life-decisions about things they didn't understand. This isn't a problem >exclusive to Bahais--it happens in virtually every big organization at some >point. >It's a people problem for me--not a Baha'u'llah problem. It was about >misguided and irresponsible interpretations of the Bahai administrative and >sacred writings--and the blind enforcement of these interpretations. > > > > > > > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 12:10 PM To: group-advice@isc.org; Russ Allbery Cc: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; John Walker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: Error in CFV: talk.religion.bahai The note has been posted in other relevant groups. I understand the rationale for not posting it to news.announce.newgroups, and that's fine with me. Regards, -- Frank At 07:50 PM 12/18/98 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >Greetings, > >Frank Baker writes: > >> A Call for Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai (TRB) has been posted on >> these newsgroups. Through a simple oversight on the part of the TRB >> proponents, there are two errors in the CFV: > >I'm afraid that these sorts of followups aren't generally approved for >posting in news.announce.newgroups; if the change was of sufficient >importance to warrant an announcement on news.announce.newgroups, the CFV >should be cancelled and restarted (with the timing problems that go with >that). > >I think it would be a much better idea to just post this followup in the >relevant newsgroups that the CFV went to that seem most affected by these >changes. > >-- >Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) >news.announce.newgroups moderation team member > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:20 AM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: Automatic reply to your test message. Dave, I've hesitated to bring this message that was falsely posted using my name and email address to your attention. I've decided I should let you know about it in case you've heard of it or it affects the poll in some way I don't realize. It obviously is intended to smear me as a pedophile or pervert or whatever.... I might add I've had recently as many as 3 crank calls a day to my home phone and a car and a van of people sitting in front of my house for up to ten minutes while straining to look into my windows and talking on cell phones.... I believe these and such similar practices online are meant to intimidate me into some action that I can then be "blamed" for, justifying one outcome or another.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." -----Original Message----- From: News Administrator To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, December 20, 1998 10:18 AM Subject: Automatic reply to your test message. >This message has been generated automatically in order to help you track >the circulation in the test newsgroups. If you do not wish any reply from >this program, just include the words "no reply" or its translation in >french or german in the subject line or in the 5 first lines of the >body of your message. > >Your article was received >by tahina.priv.at at Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:18:58 CET by the >path tahina.priv.at!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.ma xwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!ped ophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!drit z!hotmail.com!fglaysher > >Your message travelled on the network during >0 day(s), 1 hour(s), 56 minute(s), 33 second(s) >before arriving here. > >Following headers have been recognized in your message: > >Path: tahina.priv.at!news.cid.net!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.ma xwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!news.ochin.on.ca!ped ophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!drit z!hotmail.com!fglaysher >Newsgroups: alt.test,uk.test,swnet.test,han.test,fr.test,news.test,bofh.test,fj.test,new s.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.irc,news.groups >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >Approved: Pedophiles@vszbr.cz >Date: 20 Dec 1998 13:22:25 GMT >Subject: cmsg cancel <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com> >Message-ID: >Control: cancel <75870q$ki6@news1.newsguy.com> >Organization: Undocumented Illegal Alien Czech Pedophiles in Denmark >Nntp-Posting-Host: ssn.ochin.on.ca >Lines: 2 > >Following headers are present in your message but have not been recognized >by the application. This does not necessarily mean that they are not >legal: > >X-No-Archive: Pedophile >Pedophile: Barry Bouwsma >Pedophiles: Barry Bouwsma & Friends >Unrepentant-Pederast: Guy Polis >X-Cancelled-By: dritz@primenet.com (David Ritz) >Xref: tahina.priv.at control.cancel:83288 > >The first lines in the body of your message are: > >-> BARRY BOUWSMA IS A PIMPING PEDOPHILE >-> > >If you have any questions about this software, please send mail to >. > ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 12:35 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Automatic reply to your test message. dunno who's sourcing the cancel messages in your name, but they're doing it to me too. I'd just ignore the messages - there's only a couple of days left on the vote so it will soon all be over... -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 1998 9:50 AM To: Dave Cornejo Subject: Re: Fw: Automatic reply to your test message. Dave, It's not that someone's canceling messages that I'm trying to post about pederastry--I'm not one and have never been. It's someone is impersonating me and attempting to post such messages in my name! I have ignored them, except I contacted AOL and the News Administrator at newsguy.com, which I regularly use. Sorry to hear someone is hassling you too. This kind of thing has happen throughout all the previous polls as well.... Whatever the outcome, I'm grateful to you for volunteering to take on the vote counting. I'm sure you must have had misgivings about doing so, for good reasons, given the volatile history involved, and this type of thing understandably would only make one regret it.... Thank you.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Dave Cornejo To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Automatic reply to your test message. >dunno who's sourcing the cancel messages in your name, but they're >doing it to me too. I'd just ignore the messages - there's only a >couple of days left on the vote so it will soon all be over... > >-- >Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California >General Magician & Registered Be Developer > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 1998 9:47 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 3 Issues Subject: 3 Issues Date: 12/27/1998 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981227092856.12903.00001848@ng-fd1.aol.com> At the end of 1998, the 3 Issues remain here on the Bahai Forum: alt.religion.bahai added to newsgroups Libraries functioning and accepting all postings to them and uncensored by Bahais. My web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience added to Web Sites and all others freely accepted as well: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 6:04 PM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Maneck's AOL slander of me, trb, Juan Cole, etc.... FYI Subject: Maneck's AOL slander of me, trb, Juan Cole, etc.... Date: 12/28/1998 5:47 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Fglaysher Message-id: <19981228174747.25117.00002558@ng127.aol.com> Since Maneck's slander and misrepresentations have proven so difficult for some people to keep track of, I've created a web page dedicated to helping others understand what I believe are her misrepresentations, including comments to the effect from Dr. Juan Cole: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Maneck1.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards baha'i ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 7:21 PM To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Russ Allbery; Kathy Pascoe; Joe Bernstein; David Lawrence; Jonathan Grobe; Emma Pease; D E Siegel; Bill Aten Subject: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. Dave, I've been worried about Joe Berstein's message about Susan Maneck who of course called for a NO vote on talk.religion.bahai on AOL and alt.religion.bahai. His experience with her seemed to me quite limited at the time and in a context that would not have been one in which she would have revealed character traits to the contrary that I and others have observed. I have just stumbled on to a few messages about her from Dr. Juan Cole of the Department of History at The University of Michigan in early October and suggest you look at them. I've created a webpage on the whole incident: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Maneck1.htm Juan Cole discusses his experience of her similar misrepresentations and accusations of slander against him on AOL at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole20.htm and https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole19.htm Hope this helps to clarify her motives for calling for a NO vote against talk.religion.bahai and the ferocity with which Bahais have opposed talk.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 7:33 PM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. Juan, FYI Incidentally, I owe you an apology regarding our little tiff over Susan Maneck last summer. I have been lessoned.... Dave is the votetaker. The 3rd poll ended on the 25th. He's still trying to sort it out apparently.... Maneck was all sweetness and light to Berstein below on one of the Islamic newsgroups so he spoke up on her behalf. You might find the Maneck link below to offer further corroboration of her deceit and treachery, calling for a NO vote on AOL and alt.religion.bahai a week before the end of the voting period.... I've cc-ed all the news.groupies most intimately involved with the trb proposal hoping it will do some good. Anything you might add in support might be worth a try.... Frederick Glaysher.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Dave Cornejo Cc: Russ Allbery ; Kathy Pascoe ; Joe Bernstein ; David Lawrence ; Jonathan Grobe ; Emma Pease ; D E Siegel ; Bill Aten Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 7:21 PM Subject: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. >Dave, > >I've been worried about Joe Berstein's message about >Susan Maneck who of course called for a NO vote on >talk.religion.bahai on AOL and alt.religion.bahai. His >experience with her seemed to me quite limited at the >time and in a context that would not have been one in >which she would have revealed character traits to the >contrary that I and others have observed. I have just >stumbled on to a few messages about her from >Dr. Juan Cole of the Department of History at The >University of Michigan in early October and suggest you >look at them. I've created a webpage on the whole incident: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Maneck1.htm > >Juan Cole discusses his experience of her similar >misrepresentations and accusations of slander against him >on AOL at > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole20.htm > >and > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole19.htm > >Hope this helps to clarify her motives for calling for a NO vote against >talk.religion.bahai and the ferocity with which Bahais have opposed >talk.religion.bahai.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards > > > > > ---------- From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 9:07 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: dave@dogwood.com; rra@stanford.edu; kathy@scconsult.com; josephb@tezcat.com; group-advice@isc.org; grobe+news@netins.net; emma@csli.Stanford.EDU; desiegel@aol.com; bill@netagw.com Subject: Re: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. Your info is noted, but I think not really necessary at this point. If I have need of specific information I will contact you. Also, I believe that group advice and possibly some of the UVV members you have copied your email to asked you not to do that, as it is especially irrelevant to them. thanks, dave -- Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California General Magician & Registered Be Developer ---------- From: David Wright[SMTP:David.Wright.0698886@nortel.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 6:02 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Dave Cornejo; group-advice@isc.org Subject: Re: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. The vote is over now, so let's wait and see what the result is. Dave Cornejo will no doubt contact us if there seem to be problems with it, and also contact you if he needs more information. I realize this is a frustrating time for you, knowing that the vote has finished but not knowing what happened. All I can say is thanks for your patience in getting this far, and hold on to that patience while you wait for Dave to check the result. BTW there is no need to copy Russ and David Lawrence on anything copied to group-advice, as we all three get mail sent to that. Regards, David Wright, speaking as a member of, but not for group-advice@isc.org, a small advisory list that tale refers people to for advice on newsgroup naming and votes. dww@nortelnetworks.com https://www.yi.com/home/WrightDavid ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 7:16 AM Subject: fw My Letter for Leaving the Baha'i Faith Subject: My Letter for Leaving the Baha'i Faith Date: 12/14/1998 2:59 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ian Mayes Message-id: <19981214145954.25334.00002211@ng100.aol.com> 12-12-98 Dear Baha'is, Ever since I read Baha'u'llah's statement that "truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtue" I have been trying to live my life as truthfully and un- hypocritical as possible. Honesty is indeed the best policy there is, no matter what the out-come. It is in precisely this spirit that I write this letter and make this declaration. Please do not chastise me for what I am about to say, nor should you be up-set for what I am about to say. This is a moment of evolution for me, a moment of personal growth and understanding. For about three years now I have been intensely engaged in a special kind of inner turmoil regarding what my beliefs are in terms of the Baha'i Faith, and now I have decided to finally and clearly put an end to it all and move on with my life. I am not a Baha'i. I can no longer reconcile the beliefs, standards and positions of the Baha'i Faith with those that I have discovered for myself through my own personal "Independent Investigation of Truth." For a very long time now I have been desperately trying to find correlation between what has been set out in the Baha'i Faith and what is evident to myself. Every connection, interpretation, twisting of meaning, and coincidence I have used as some kind of personal "proof" to myself that what I believe and what I am is in accordance with the Baha'i Faith. I have now decided to no longer put the wool over my eyes and I am determined to call it as it is, this means accepting that the Faith has no real significance over any other religion or philosophy in my personal beliefs and standards. The truth of the matter is that I am primarily an anarchist. It is the philosophy of Anarchism where my real dedication and commitment lies. I could not reconcile that the Baha'i Faith encourages patriotism and dedication to government where I seek the absolute abolition of all government. Nor could I reconcile it's dedication to hard work in the "work as worship" attitude when I see the work in our Capitalist economic system as primarily aiding an elite few, oppressing the majority of the people and destroying our natural environment. Most of all, Anarchism seeks the abolition of all forms of authority, political, economic, social and religious, while the Baha'i Faith is a religion based upon authority and which takes great pride in that it has relied upon authority to keep it together all this time. I do not see justice and humanity in relying upon guardians, masters, councils and assemblies while we all remain human beings who are more than capable of thinking, deciding, working and living for ourselves. A major component of what makes up the Baha'i Faith seems to be its administration. Right after the beliefs, principles and "central figures" are all explained to the Seekers, descriptions of "Baha'i Administration" are always given. I can never believe in administration or government. I can believe in self-administration and self-government, but I can never believe in a body of people appointed to do this. Perhaps the biggest factor that has contributed to my leaving the Baha'i Faith is that I do not believe in God in the traditional sense. I am a Pantheist. I see "God" as being synonymous with ALL existence and ALL reality. I quite literally view "God" as being everything everywhere in every way. I do not centralize "God" into a single being, entity, force, essence, thing, spirit, person, or manifestation. I decentralize "God," and see it as being the totality of all that is. Therefore, there could be no "Creator" or thing that we must pray to, worship and pay homage to. There is only existence and reality itself and our own personal spiritual connections with it. After reading the famous anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's book "God and the State" a couple of times, I have come to agree with him that "if God really did exist, it would be necessary to abolish Him." That is, if a single centralized being, entity, force, etc. existed which demanded that we obey it and be subservient to it, then I would actively seek its destruction. As Bakunin pointed out, all authority is in itself inherently degrading and destructive to humanity and the higher the authority, the more degrading and destructive it is to humanity. The Baha'i Faith refers to "He who is the Most High" and places God way above us all. Likewise, Baha'u'llah has referred to humanity as being of significance which is "less than dirt." I simply can not follow such a religion. The Baha'i Faith is based on such a blatantly hierarchical foundation which puts humanity in such a very low position. God should not be "above" us nor should any Satan-like entity be "below" us. We need an equal footing and an equal mutual cooperation. Another aspect of my beliefs, which is core to who I am, is Pacifism. I abhor any and all violence and find the Baha'i stand of looking down upon without totally condemning all war and violence as simply not being good enough. If one truly does want a peaceful, loving, unified humanity, absolutely no violence whatsoever would be tolerated. However, this is not the ONLY time where the divisive anti-unity attitude of the Baha'i Faith is apparent, the condemnation of homosexuals as being "spiritually diseased" and of Covenant Breakers merely for being Covenant Breakers goes directly against any semblance of "unity in diversity." Because of this, I have decided to follow the advice of Abdu'l-Baha himself when he said in Paris Talks: "If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it is better to be without it." The Baha'i lifestyle is another thing which I can not accept. "Obligatory prayer," the required pilgrimage to Haifa, the money that must be paid by each individual to the Faith, the standards of dress, the standards of language and the laws of "chastity" and marriage (which happens to be another institution that I am opposed to) are all things that go directly against personal freedom, personal choice, natural instinct, diversity and creativity. Nobody should ever become the drone-slave that such a life-style inevitably entails. I have been mentioning how anarchism is antagonistic to the Baha'i Faith, however, after reading and consulting the Baha'i sacred writings themselves, I have discovered that the Baha'i Faith is antagonistic to anarchism as well. Some examples that I have found are in the "Messages to America" by Shoghi Effendi on page 50, where he states that the Baha'i Faith and its Covenant are designed by God Himself to be "the sole refuge against anarchy." In "The Promised Day Is Come" by Shoghi Effendi on pages 6 and 7 he says that anarchism is conclusively disproved by the tenets of the Baha'i Faith and the conduct of its followers. He also says there that anarchism "unwittingly or maliciously injures the Cause." And in "Directives of the Guardian" by Shoghi Effendi on pages 53 - 54 he goes into a thorough attack of BOTH Pacifism and anarchism. Also within the Baha'i writings, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice all denounce and attack "anarchy." However, when they use the term "anarchy" it is clearly usually synonymous with "chaos" and "disorder," which is the popular misconception and mis-usage of the term. The word "anarchy" really means a society that operates under the principles of anarchism; it comes from the original Greek meaning "No rulers." However, it is always emphatically stressed within the Baha'i Faith that each and every single word that is ever uttered or written by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is always very carefully thought out and chosen. If this is true, I would then assume that they would all know the true meaning of the word "anarchy" and would thereby have to conclude that the Baha'i Faith very frequently attacks and denounces that which is the core to what I am. If this is not true, then I have direct evidence of the ignorance and fallibility of these supposedly infallible God-sent people, as well as proof that the Baha'i Faith has lied to me. The destruction of the faith and devotion of each individual Baha'i lies within its own teachings and principles. If one happens to take all of its principles at face value, the seed for the eventual demise of the Baha'i Faith is right there. I am referring to the "Independent Investigation of Truth." I have ALWAYS loved the "Independent Investigation of Truth." It has always been the most attractive thing to me about the Baha'i Faith. To me, it seemed to greatly set apart the Baha'i Faith from all of the world's other religions. However, if one really does follow this principle, if one always DOES question, if one is always looking, searching, investigating and THINKING, then one will always inevitably be led away from the Baha'i Faith. Because the truth is that there is a whole world out there outside of the Baha'i Faith, a whole world which has a great variety of answers and ideas to each and every single thing. When literally millions of other ways exist, the chances of the Baha'i Faith being right each and every time on even the majority of subjects is statistically improbable. Taking the Independent Investigation of Truth at face value and combining it with the reality of statistics can't help but have people wind up like me, finding value in other philosophies, ideas and possibilities. It is in precisely the same spirit as the "Independent Investigation of Truth" that I found solace in the open- mindedness of the philosophy of anarchism. Mikhail Bakunin did indeed say: "No theory, no book, no ready-made system will ever save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." However, the Faith is aware of this inherent flaw, and it has taken measures to counter it. This is why the "Independent Investigation of Truth" is used as nothing more than a ploy, as sugarcoating to get people into the Faith, and then it is abandoned as soon as they are confirmed believers. It was evident, at least in my experience, that once I was a confirmed Baha'i that the "Independent Investigation of Truth," which was so important to me, became overshadowed by things which made me totally uncomfortable, such as the Persian Hidden Words # 11 and a multitude of other demands for obedience, subservience, conformity, and submission. After one has declared, it is discovered that the "Most Holy Book" is also the "Book of Laws," and each and every petty detail of how to hand one's independent freethinking soul over to The Supreme Authority is then detailed. Explicit or implied rules, laws, commands, dictates are abundant EVERYWHERE within the Baha'i Faith. Everywhere you look, every page of the sacred texts, every prayer, every Hidden Word contains more and more and more of the things that we must do. I can not accept this, as Bakunin said: "Every command is a slap in the face of liberty." In fact, the very term "seeker" is abandoned once one has become a Baha'i. It is implied that one is only "seeking" when one is not a Baha'i. I consider being a "seeker" a wonderful, beautiful, even "sacred," thing. I do not see it as just something to label "the uninitiated." I hold freethinking, open- mindedness and new creative ideas as some of the most beautiful and endearing qualities of humanity. I have discovered that the real meaning of the Baha'i term "Unity in Diversity" is not at all used like the anarchist term "Libertarian Socialism." "Unity in Diversity" is instead used to mean that the Baha'i Faith accepts all different races, ethnicities, nationalities, sexes and involuntary physical appearances. In other words, all the "diversity" that the Baha'i Faith accepts are things which one is born with, no room is left for diversity of thought, ideas and life-styles. As soon as one leaves their mother's womb, no further "diversity" is allowed. Anarchism to me represents the ideals of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity." The Baha'i Faith destroys liberty through it's continued insistence on obedience to the many Laws, and God's Will. It destroys equality through its condemnation of homosexuals and Covenant Breakers, as well as the fact that only a select few can serve on the Administration at any given time. Also it destroys fraternity because every gathering of Baha'is has the higher ideal of The Faith as it's sub-text and under-lying theme, the goal is something above them, not they themselves. I admit, a good deal of fraternity exists within the Faith, this is partly why I have stayed with it for so long. This is partly why I joined the Faith to begin with as well, because I was so enamored and awed by the power of human closeness and fraternity which was expressed at the Louis Gregory Baha'i Institute in the summer of 1995. I had mistaken the Baha'i Faith for the power of fraternity itself. I have now discovered that it is the empowerment, invigoration and sense of belonging that such communal environments create within us that appealed to me. The truth is this has indeed been a rough, agonizing and even painful decision for me to make. Words simply can not express to you how much emotion, time, energy, and thought has been put into this. I have read, investigated, communicated around the world, thought out, prayed and meditated, and the truth is now finally revealed to me. Now, it has all finally come down to this irrefutable fact: I can no longer reconcile my true beliefs with the Baha'i Faith. I can neither pretend to be a Baha'i when I am certain that I am not one nor can I live with the inner turmoil of trying to be both an anarchist and a Baha'i when the two are mutually antagonistic. I have to declare what my beliefs really are now. I have to break from the Baha'i Faith and I must now live my life without it. I ask of you now, please do not try to convince me otherwise; please do not argue with me. Please do not try to "heal/save my wayward soul." Please do not talk down to me. Please do not try to change my mind. Please do not try to obstruct my decision here. After a great and life-long journey, my personal decision has been made, and that is all there is to it. I am an anarchist. That is my true life's calling. As Alexander Berkman said: "Anarchism is the most beautiful thought that humanity has ever had." I will die for anarchism, but more importantly I will LIVE for anarchism. I am enclosing my Baha'i membership card to return to you. It says it is your "property." Though I do not believe in property, I do not want it on my person any longer since, not only am I no longer a Baha'i, I neither believe in nor do I want myself interred according to the Baha'i standards of burial. Please, remove my name and Baha'i number from any and all records and registries that you have, thereby officially ending my association with and membership to the Baha'i Faith. I do not want to receive any mailings, publications or announcements from you any longer. However, I do request you to reply to this letter with a letter confirming I have been completely taken off the books. The Baha'i Faith has indeed been a vital part in my life-long personal growth and development for me in innumerable ways. It has been with me from day one since I was born and raised in a Baha'i household, and it has definitely shaped who I am as a human being. The "Independent Investigation of Truth," the anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-ethnicist, anti-nationalist and general anti-prejudice attitudes, the individual directly controlling their own spiritual health and well-being, and the belief that all of humanity should be loved and united are all aspects of the Faith that will stay with me forever. I do feel as if I have grown out of and beyond the reaches of the Baha'i Faith, but I will never forget the role it has played in the first twenty years of my life. I genuinely do thank you, and I wish you all the best. Sincerely, Ian Mayes ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 1:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. Dear Fred: Good luck with trb. The call for a 'no' vote and its grounds was clearly illicit according to the Usenet rules and ethos, and it seems to me that the Internet community is unlikely to let it pass without notice. As for the apology, please don't think of it. The problem with the 'administrative order' types is that they stab individuals in the back behind the scenes in such a way that others don't even believe it was done. The secrecy, manipulation, and dishonesty are all clear cult markers, I'm afraid. It is a sad thing, since most Baha'is are idealistic and good-hearted, but they end up being carefully conditioned by the AO cultists to put up with almost any injustice. I hope people will listen to your courageous voice, and also that they will do the right thing vis a vis trb. cheers Juan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 9:06 AM Subject: fw Juan Cole Re: Maneck's AOL slander of me, trb, Juan Cole, etc.... FYI -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 5:17 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Susan Maneck's charge of slander, Joe Berstein, etc. > > >Dear Fred: > >Good luck with trb. > >The call for a 'no' vote and its grounds was clearly illicit according to >the Usenet rules and ethos, and it seems to me that the Internet community >is unlikely to let it pass without notice. > >As for the apology, please don't think of it. The problem with the >'administrative order' types is that they stab individuals in the back >behind the scenes in such a way that others don't even believe it was done. > The secrecy, manipulation, and dishonesty are all clear cult markers, I'm >afraid. It is a sad thing, since most Baha'is are idealistic and >good-hearted, but they end up being carefully conditioned by the AO >cultists to put up with almost any injustice. I hope people will listen to >your courageous voice, and also that they will do the right thing vis a vis >trb. > >cheers Juan > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Maneck's AOL slander of me, trb, Juan Cole, etc.... K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <368aa292.0@vlinsvr>... I wish to protect the >proposed group and the issues raised on the website from the >relentlessly partisan and antagonistic discourse with which >Baha'is have surrounded them. Fred's part of that atmosphere, >but has received a lot more personal hostility than he's dished out. Once again, Paul, thank you.... This vehement hostility clearly shows how the real issues loom larger than myself.... >.... But why not try living *and letting live* just a bit more? >Fred's human, he's hurting, he's been wounded, he's got real >issues. If he's also strident and relentless and very hard to >deal with, might this be an effect of the former? And might it >be the divinely-ordained karma of Baha'is to deal with the results of the way >people have been wounded by Baha'is and their institutions? >If so, what would be the right way to handle such situations? > >Cheers, >PJ This made me think of the 105,000 wounded, missing Bahais driven out in one way or another.... So many of them brilliant young minds, "people of capacity," whom Bahais so often claim they want.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards