From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 7:10 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE IN > >THIS 3RD DRAFT ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE THUS FAR. > > > >ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: > > Looks really good to me. Is there such a group as alt.religion? It > does not appear on my ISP's list, only alt.religion.xxx. Thanks for saying so. Donald suggested alt.religion so I added it. I can't get it to come up on my server either. Maybe it doesn't exist. Anybody know? Also I just saw somewhere talk.religion.... which doesn't seem to exist either or does it? Probably talk.religion.MISC.... > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 5:30 PM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Donald Zhang Osborn > wrote > > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>Chris wrote: > >>> > >>> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >>> wrote > >>> >I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE IN > >>> >THIS 3RD DRAFT ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE THUS FAR. > >>> > > >>> >ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: > >>> > >>> Looks really good to me. Is there such a group as alt.religion? It > >>> does not appear on my ISP's list, only alt.religion.xxx. > >> > >>Thanks for saying so. Donald suggested alt.religion so I added it. > >>I can't get it to come up on my server either. Maybe it doesn't > >>exist. Anybody know? Also I just saw somewhere talk.religion.... > >>which doesn't seem to exist either or does it? Probably > >>talk.religion.MISC.... > > > >I suggested adding alt.religion (which definitely does exist as a general > >religion discussion group with apparently a similar mandate to that of > >t.r.m. but a different character) and removing soc.culture.israel, > >soc.rights.human, and news.admin.censorship (which do not seem relevant > >[esp. s.r.i.] to an RFD for t.r.b.). This is to reiterate the latter > >part of the request. TIA! DZO > > Something funny here. My ISP lists only four talk.religion.xxx groups > where xxx="buddhism|course-miracle|misc|newage." In contrast there are > some 120 alt.religion.xxx groups where xxx is from "adm3a" to > "zoroastrianism." Seems that the alt heirarchy is very much the > dominant one when it comes to religion. I shall download an updated > list and see if anything changes. As my ISP lists nearly 20 000 > newsgroups, they cannot be missing out many. > > Later.... > > Just downloaded 25286 newsgroup definitions! alt.religion is amongst > them but the talk.religion heirarchy is still only four strong. This > does seem a bit strange. Okay, let's see if I got this right.... Alt.religion does indeed exist, though not on my or your server.... I'll still be sure to add alt.religion to the RFD. Now then, what about talk.religion? Does it exist on anyone else's server? I only have the same four talk.* hierarchy groups too. Given 120 on the alt.* grouping, maybe we've just discovered another justification for talk.religion.bahai! Numerical fairness, or something like that.... > > All the best, everybody, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 5:34 PM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > >> >I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE IN > >> >THIS 3RD DRAFT ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE THUS FAR. > >> > > >> >ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: > >> > >> Looks really good to me. Is there such a group as alt.religion? It > >> does not appear on my ISP's list, only alt.religion.xxx. > > > >Thanks for saying so. Donald suggested alt.religion so I added it. > >I can't get it to come up on my server either. Maybe it doesn't > >exist. Anybody know? Also I just saw somewhere talk.religion.... > >which doesn't seem to exist either or does it? Probably > >talk.religion.MISC.... > > I suggested adding alt.religion (which definitely does exist as a general > religion discussion group with apparently a similar mandate to that of > t.r.m. but a different character) and removing soc.culture.israel, > soc.rights.human, and news.admin.censorship (which do not seem relevant > [esp. s.r.i.] to an RFD for t.r.b.). This is to reiterate the latter > part of the request. TIA! DZO I'm opposed to eliminating soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human, and news.admin.censorship from the RFD. I conceded I would not crosspost as heavily, especially to soc.culture.israel and s.c.i.... Your turn to compromise.... I've been doing a lot of it if you haven't noticed. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 5:04 PM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: UseNet "Guidelines"? (was Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) A valid question has been raised. Are there any valid guidlines to voting on a newsgroup proposal? WHERE are they written down? Or may anyone, for any underhanded, deceitful reason, vote NO with impunity? Brian Aull wrote: > > In article <34154A4B.5855@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > PROCEDURE: > > > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold..... > > > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > > "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > > questions about the process. > > > > I read the first document referred to above and could find no trace of any > statement that people are supposed to vote against groups on "technical" > grounds only, and not on the basis of "ideological" grounds. There are > also no statements prohibiting "campaigns," for or against the creation of > a new group, as long as the campaigner is not one of the neutral vote > takers. Nor are there any statements to the effect that any time a > newsgroup proposal fails, those who voted against it are somehow > committing an unethical act of depriving those who voted for it of their > right to free expression. > > Given that we are about to repeat the trb process, Frederick, I strongly > suggest that you substantiate your past statements about these issues by > posting some quotes from Usenet guideline documents. If I have missed > something here, this will help to educate me and clear up any > misconceptions that I have. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 5:07 PM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Okay, let's see if I got this right.... Alt.religion does indeed > >exist, though not on my or your server.... I'll still be sure to > >add alt.religion to the RFD. Now then, what about talk.religion? > >Does it exist on anyone else's server? I only have the same four > >talk.* hierarchy groups too. > > Not quite. After I downloaded the updated list, I was able to access > 'alt.religion.' However, there was no record of a group called > 'talk.religion.' After you mentioned it existed, I posted a request to www.zippo.com and they've added alt.religion.... Unless someone objects, I'll add it to the RFD.... > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 6:27 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UseNet "Guidelines"? (was Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) R. Craig Harman wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > A valid question has been raised. Are there any valid guidlines > > to voting on a newsgroup proposal? WHERE are they written down? > > Or may anyone, for any underhanded, deceitful reason, vote NO > > with impunity? > > Despite the fact that there are some who would like to define what a > "YES", "ABSTAIN", "NO", and "CANCEL" vote mean, the simple fact is > that anyone may vote any way they feel like about any group. There > is no such thing as an "underhanded, deceitful reason". > > In contrast, campaigning with pre-filled ballots or falsifying return > addresses do constitute fraud. Would you consider a detailed message of ideological, religious reasons and instructions on how and why to vote NO fraud too? That's basically what I believe took place in March during the first vote for talk.religion.bahai.... Some people appear very eager to repeat it: 157 YES votes to 691 NO. > > -- > Robert Craig Harman En France, appelez 01 34 80 04 83 pour > BYU Chemical Engineering recevoir un Livre de Mormon gratuit... > Master's Candidate > LDS France Paris Mission https://www.et.byu.edu/~harmanc/paris/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 6:31 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UseNet "Guidelines"? (was Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Don Croyle wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher writes: > > > A valid question has been raised. Are there any valid guidlines > > to voting on a newsgroup proposal? WHERE are they written down? > > Or may anyone, for any underhanded, deceitful reason, vote NO > > with impunity? > > No. Joe Bernstein was working on something like that. Yes. There is at least an ethos of acceptable UseNet voting.... Would you go that far? There is a sense shared by fair-minded people of what's right and wrong procedure. I'll grant, 691 people can indeed vote NO for ideological reasons with impunity.... But not unobserved nor unopposed.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 6:54 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Brian Aull wrote: > > In article <34154A4B.5855@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > PROCEDURE: > > > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold..... > > > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > > "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > > questions about the process. > > > > I read the first document referred to above and could find no trace of any > statement that people are supposed to vote against groups on "technical" > grounds only, and not on the basis of "ideological" grounds. There are > also no statements prohibiting "campaigns," for or against the creation of > a new group, as long as the campaigner is not one of the neutral vote > takers. Nor are there any statements to the effect that any time a > newsgroup proposal fails, those who voted against it are somehow > committing an unethical act of depriving those who voted for it of their > right to free expression. > > Given that we are about to repeat the trb process, Frederick, I strongly > suggest that you substantiate your past statements about these issues by > posting some quotes from Usenet guideline documents. If I have missed > something here, this will help to educate me and clear up any > misconceptions that I have. I quote from An Introduction to Usenet Voting, Jani Patokallio's UVV page at: https://www.hut.fi/~jpatokal/uvv/index.html. Now, please note that when you vote, you are voting on a specific group proposal, not an idea. You cannot send a vote that says "I vote NO against Nazis on the net", because that's not a group proposal. Also, when deciding your vote, the only factors that should matter are whether you will read the group and whether the proposal will directly harm your interests. Let's say there's a proposal for a group called rec.food.bananas and you hate bananas. That's not a valid reason for voting against it, because the existence of that group would not harm you one bit - if you don't like it, don't read it. But if the proposal also called for removing the group rec.food.apples, which you read daily and like very much, then you would certainly be justified in voting against the proposal. Because one hates Bahai "free speech" bananas is invalid.... One may eat the kind of bananas one prefers elsewhere.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 6:57 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UseNet "Guidelines"? (was Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Henrietta Thomas wrote: > > In news.groups on Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:04:06 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >A valid question has been raised. Are there any valid guidlines > >to voting on a newsgroup proposal? WHERE are they written down? > >Or may anyone, for any underhanded, deceitful reason, vote NO > >with impunity? > > There are a couple of good sources of information. One is the official > UVV homepage at: https://www.uvv.org. The other is at Jani Patokallio's > UVV page at: https://www.hut.fi/~jpatokal/uvv/index.html. > > SFAIK, there are no rules governing "underhanded, deceitful" reasons > for voting YES or NO. Nobody has to say why they voted. People who > are interested in a group will usually vote YES, but it's hard to say why > anyone votes NO. The reason could be technical, personal, or political. > And every _valid_ vote will be counted, regardless of the reason for > the vote. What defense or resort do those crushed by a NO majority have? Thanks for links, by the way.... > > Henrietta Thomas > hkt@wwa.com > --- > Confused by the noise in news.groups? For an in-depth explanation, > see the news.groups FAQ: > https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 7:18 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 4th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai THIS IS MERELY THE 4th ROUGH DRAFT OF A PROPOSED RFD FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. THIS ROUGH DRAFT IS INTENDED FOR DISCUSSION NOW. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE FINAL VERSION UNTIL SOME TIME IN OCTOBER. HOWEVER, YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED NOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE RFD ORIGINALLY POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 1997, AND REVISED IT HERE. SEVERAL OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALSO MADE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE IN THIS 4th DRAFT ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE THUS FAR. ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: ------------ This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai 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, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, until the present, over 2,257 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.05 messages per day for 150 days, and 451.40 messages a month for five months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor 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. The proponent intends 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 lower order 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai discussion list Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us Baha'i Announce Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam, alt.religion,a.bsu.religion -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 6:23 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Chris wrote: > >Added it. Should all of the several other Bahai listservs > >go in here? Bahai-Discuss (or something like that)? > > Apart from Talisman & Irfan I'm not sure about the others. There is a > Baha'i Resourses on the Internet Web Page I think. You may be able to > get something from that. I suggest only pointers to the specialist > groups and full RFD to Baha'i Announce. What do others here think? > (Let's have a bit of consultation here y'all!) How about all of the following listservs at bahai-request@bcca.org for the 5th Rough Draft: Baha'i Announce (Announce) BINS (BINS) Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Tech (Tech) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you may subscribehere. Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. > > >What about > >the UK:groups on religion? I think it's uk.religion.misc > >or something, etc.... Might add all of them for pointers.... > > Try uk.religion.misc, UR.interfaith and UR.other-faiths. Just pointers > I would agree. And in the UK: uk.religion.buddist uk.religion.christian uk.religion.hindu uk.religion.interfaith uk.religion.islam uk.religion.jewish uk.religion.misc uk.religion.other-faiths Chris, I'm not sure what you mean by UR.interfaith? Is that correct? > > >> Also suggest a.bsu.religion and alt.religion, both of which are active > >> general religious groups. > > > >Donald suggested alt.religion before, which I've moved > >into the pointer group.... A.bsu.religion? What is it? Spell that out please. Alt.bsu.religion? > > It was the first group I ever subscribed to and was wonderful for about > a year during which we had some really deep discussions on theology and > faith, after which the Christian fundamentalists took over and after a > while I dropped out. I believe there are some of the old guard still > there and they certainly got to hear about the Baha'i Faith. > > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 6:26 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 4th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:18:36 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >THIS IS MERELY THE 4th ROUGH DRAFT OF A PROPOSED RFD FOR > >TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. THIS ROUGH DRAFT IS INTENDED FOR > >DISCUSSION NOW. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE > > Minor quibble: Could you put the apostrophe in "Baha'i" where > appropriate? In the name of a newsgroup? > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 6:34 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 4th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > One new suggestion to put on the table and two poiiints of information > concerning the lists: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: > [snip] > > > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > > [snip] > > > >Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, > >but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate > >terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and > >readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive > >crossposting. > > This standard appeal still seems ineffectual. If you still prefer not > to use something that appeals to higher motives, you could eliminate > verbiage here by replacing this paragraph with: "Readers are asked to > observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." How about leaving it as it is but adding your sentence above to the end of it? Incidentally, how do we define standard netiquette if we can't define standard voting procedures.... > > [snip] > > > >DISTRIBUTION: > > > [snip] > > > >and the following mailing lists: > > > > Academic discussion of Bahai faith > > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > > > Bahai discussion list > > > > Bahai Studies > > Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > I think the Baha'i studies list (BTW note apostrophes) address is > Bahai-st@... the major@... is for subscriptions. Right you are. I choose to Anglicize systematically. > > > Baha'i Announce > > I might be wrong, but I understand that anything going to this list is > automatically forwarded to the Baha'i discussion list above. Anybody know for sure? > > Hope these help... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:35 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > >> >Chris wrote: > >> >Added it. Should all of the several other Bahai listservs > >> >go in here? Bahai-Discuss (or something like that)? > >> > >> Apart from Talisman & Irfan I'm not sure about the others. There is a > >> Baha'i Resourses on the Internet Web Page I think. You may be able to > >> get something from that. I suggest only pointers to the specialist > >> groups and full RFD to Baha'i Announce. What do others here think? > >> (Let's have a bit of consultation here y'all!) > > > >How about all of the following listservs at bahai-request@bcca.org > >for the 5th Rough Draft: > > > >Baha'i Announce (Announce) > RFD & CFV? Whatever you think. If the RFD is posted somewhere, it's only logical to post the CFV, don't you agree? > >BINS (BINS) > >Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) > >Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) > RFD & CFV? DItto. > >Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) > >Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) > >Baha'i Singles (Singles) > >Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) > >Baha'i Tech (Tech) > >Baha'i Women Converse (Women) > >Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) > >Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you may > >subscribehere. > >Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. > > Suggest that as the others are not general dicussion groups that they > have pointer only. I am happy to put the RFD & CFV onto my web page so > you can piont to that as well -- could be > the address -- as the RFD would only be posted once (to news.groups?) > and anyone looking a week later could well not see it. I'm not sure it's permissible to post a RFD on a webpage, is it? I'm all for it otherwise. If others think pointers instead of the RFD are preferable, I'll go with that. I wonder though, should the women's group have the RFD and CFV, in all fairness.... > > > > >> > >> >What about > >> >the UK:groups on religion? I think it's uk.religion.misc > >> >or something, etc.... Might add all of them for pointers.... > >> > >> Try uk.religion.misc, UR.interfaith and UR.other-faiths. Just pointers > >> I would agree. > > > >And in the UK: > > > > uk.religion.buddist > > uk.religion.christian > > uk.religion.hindu > > uk.religion.interfaith Okay, Uk.r.interfaith > > uk.religion.islam > > uk.religion.jewish > > uk.religion.misc > > uk.religion.other-faiths Got ya, ur.misc and ur.other-faiths. > > > >Chris, I'm not sure what you mean by UR.interfaith? Is that correct? > > UR=uk.religion. I would suggest pointers to at least URI, URM & URO-F. > The rest are up to you. In principle I would suggest that a pointer > could have very wide distribution without offending anyone PROVIDED that > "Follow-up To" is set to news.groups (& ARB?). Pointers only. We need to get some expert advice on this followup idea to news.groups and arb? Opinions? > > > > > > >> > >> >> Also suggest a.bsu.religion and alt.religion, both of which are active > >> >> general religious groups. > >> > > >> >Donald suggested alt.religion before, which I've moved > >> >into the pointer group.... A.bsu.religion? What is it? > > > >Spell that out please. Alt.bsu.religion? I can't guess by the letters... > > > > No, it IS "a.bsu.religion" -- NOT alt. There are three newsgroups in > that set. I guess it is very old and was set up before names became > formalised. No one sees to know who runs (hosts) it but it is > definitely there! What do they talk about? > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:41 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Chris wrote: > >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > > wrote > >>How about all of the following listservs at bahai-request@bcca.org > >>for the 5th Rough Draft: > >> > >>Baha'i Announce (Announce) > >RFD & CFV? > Yes. May also automatically go to Bahai-discuss subscribers Could you find out for us, Donald, if it's definite that messages are copied to Bahai-discuss too. We've heard it a few times now. NO reason to be redundant. > > >>BINS (BINS) > No. A mailing-only group & off topic. What topic is it? I subscribe to it and am not sure it's off topic, i.e., the Bahai Faith.... > > >>Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) > Possible. > > >>Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) > >RFD & CFV? > Yes, but see above (Bahai-announce) > > >>Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) > >>Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) > >>Baha'i Singles (Singles) > Doubt it would be appropriate for such special-interest groups. > > >>Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) > Possible, as use of computer communications for teaching is on topic > > >>Baha'i Tech (Tech) > Doubt it would be appropriate for such a special-interest group > > >>Baha'i Women Converse (Women) > >>Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) > Possible for the above two. > > >>Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you may > >>subscribehere. > No. A mailing only group & off topic. I agree. Let's just drop the Readings one. > > >>Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. > No. Although this group is run by BCCA, it is not for discussion of > the Baha'i faith but race unity; so it would be off-topic. Also, > I think a large percentage of subscribers are not Baha'i So what. They know something about the Bahai Faith or they wouldn't be subscribed to it. I think we should include it for a pointer. > > >>> >What about > >>> >the UK:groups on religion? I think it's uk.religion.misc > >>> >or something, etc.... Might add all of them for pointers.... > >>> > >>> Try uk.religion.misc, UR.interfaith and UR.other-faiths. Just pointers > >>> I would agree. > >> > >>And in the UK: > >> > >> uk.religion.buddist > >> uk.religion.christian > >> uk.religion.hindu > >> uk.religion.interfaith > >> uk.religion.islam > >> uk.religion.jewish > >> uk.religion.misc > >> uk.religion.other-faiths > >> > >>Chris, I'm not sure what you mean by UR.interfaith? Is that correct? > > > >UR=uk.religion. I would suggest pointers to at least URI, URM & URO-F. > >The rest are up to you. In principle I would suggest that a pointer > >could have very wide distribution without offending anyone PROVIDED that > >"Follow-up To" is set to news.groups (& ARB?). > > There are various religion related groups in several hierarchies - how far > do you all want to take this? (That's a question, not a rhetorical > statement). The list could get *very* long. Everywhere on earth.... > > Hope this helps. > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:45 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <5vpfgn$q2n$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu wrote: > > >There are various religion related groups in several hierarchies - how far > >do you all want to take this? (That's a question, not a rhetorical > >statement). The list could get *very* long. > > There are a lot of people who are really touchy about their newsgroups. > I think that, for most of these non Baha'i newsgroups, a single post of > the pointer will attract as many yes votes as you are going to get out > of that group. Post the pointer again, and you will get as many no > votes as yes votes. Do it a third time and people will start lobbying > against your proposal. I am serious. posting to lots of places is a > *very* sensitive subject for a very large number of people. Guy's persuaded me on this point.... Let's make it one pointer only, and then that's it until the CFV is then posted in news.groups, at which time I believe a copy of the CFV would go to all of the groups in which pointers only appeared, or do I have that wrong? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:48 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 4th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:26:56 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >Roger Reini wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:18:36 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote: > >> > >> >THIS IS MERELY THE 4th ROUGH DRAFT OF A PROPOSED RFD FOR > >> >TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. THIS ROUGH DRAFT IS INTENDED FOR > >> >DISCUSSION NOW. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE > >> > >> Minor quibble: Could you put the apostrophe in "Baha'i" where > >> appropriate? > > > >In the name of a newsgroup? > > No, not in the name of newsgroups, but throughout the rest of the RFD > where appropriate. I believe it's appropriate to consistently Angelicize it.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 6:13 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Peter da Silva wrote: > > Why do people think that mailing lists are a suitable place to send voting > ballots to? I know it's becomre common, but that doesn't mean it's desirable. > It warps the outcome of the vote in such a way that doesn't reflect the > desirability of the group, and may be counterproductive. > > At one point mailing a CFV to a list was grounds for restarting the vote. Why not a pointer to a list? What's wrong with it? > > Oh well. There's always Usenet II. > -- > This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references > to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 6:23 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The theocratic mindset Fran Baker wrote: > > In the spirit of Juan Cole's remarks, I would like to > offer this selection from "Testaments Betrayed: An > Essay in Nine Parts" by novelist Milan Kundera. > > Kundera writes: > > ...the condemnation of Rushdie can be seen not as a chance > event, an abberation, but as the most profound conflict > between two eras: theocracy goes to war against the Modern Era > and targets its most representative creation: the novel. > For Rushdie did not blaspheme. He did not attack Islam. > He wrote a novel. But that, for the theocratic mind, is worse > than an attack: if a religion is attacked (by a polemic, > a blasphemy, a heresy), the guardians of the temple can easily > defend it on their own ground, with their own language; > but the novel is a different planet for them; a different > universe based on a different ontology; an infernum where > the unique truth is powerless and where satanic ambiguity turns every > certainty into enigma. > Let us emphasize this: not attack but ambiguity. So the most instructive lesson I ever received from soc.religion.bahai was THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT SARCASM.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG@hotmail.com[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 9:21 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai-discuss on talk.religion.bahai [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] [A sampling of opinion from the bahai-discuss listserv on talk/alt.religion.bahai.] From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:08:05 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC91m-0003ucC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 15:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Subject: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:45:09 -0500 X-Sender: persia@persia.com I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:40:02 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC9jN-0003u4C; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:32 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:18:16 -0700 From: Ragna Jensen For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? Thanks, Ragna ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. ---------- I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:10:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCA72-0003ueC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:57 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:55:40 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. Dear Robert, I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a group like BCCA is a blessing. John From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:30:57 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCARR-0003sNC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 17:18 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Reply-To: Graham Sorenson In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:22:40 +0100 From: Graham Sorenson In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer writes >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes >comes out. > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al #with all the attendent spams etc. > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 15:54:37 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCBpq-0003rfC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 18:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34224FCA.115C@TENET.EDU> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-STWB (Win16; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: haukness@tenet.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:11:22 -0700 From: haukness@tenet.edu John B. Cornell wrote: > > Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Dear Robert, > > I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at > alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom > learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a > group like BCCA is a blessing. > > John Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am waiting on the Baha'i scholarship freedom on Noble to sift down before I decide on jumping in or not. As Tom Hodges posted what is my inclination, that the topic is not suited for Noble and is better suited for a place like here as it is not a topic we need to air out with non-Baha'is. I see this as going back to Resurrection and Renewal, the MacEion sympathy bandwagon and talisman. The statements coming out of these 3 camps were as if written in stone, that only a few persecuted and enlightened scholars knew what true freedom is, and the Baha'i Administration and core of non-thinking blind followers thwarting freedom didn't respect free the study of concepts but got hung up on methods. I am waiting to see how this last round of who is anti and un scholarly and who is a bona-fide scholar. What I recognize is that the Baha'i Administration has a long history of surrounding itself with great scholarship, indeed represents the best of scholarship concepts and methods. There is only a rift, to those who I believe see the covenant a lot differenlty than did the Guardian. Now, there is always a lot of posts that no one can call anyone a covenant breaker. This is true, but there are, however well intentioned it may be, lot's of voices among us, I believe, who extend this to mean that we Baha'is cannot discuss the covenant. Which correlates to the current snides that have been taken the past 2 years that Adib Taherzadeh represents a case in point of non-scholarship, because he is just a follower and not independent enough in secular science, but then too, that one cannot write about what he titled his vol5 book, "The Covenant of Bahaullah," because 'no one can talk about this. The problem is, that this then means one cannot come to a conclusion that the problem sometimes, in some of this stuff, is that the Baha'i Covenant is not being taken into proper consideration in the summations bandied about. And if indeed the issue in some of the neo-Baha'i literature, voices in error because of a departure from the Sacred Writings, that it is not true scholarship, to ignore bringing the Covenant into the analysis of the discussion. Thus this is not the same or even allied with calling anyone a covenant breaker, but rather, that a paragraph or a sentence, when held up to analysis, can be found to be at variance with the Baha'i Covenant. If so, this can be important to point out. It is not just the Universal House of Justice which can discuss the nature of obedience, following, and intigrating the covenant, both when it happens and when it doesn't, it is also a topic open to all Baha'is. Thus when MacEoin does a 50/50 study of the Faith "Thge polarization of Azalis and Baha'is resulted in the rapid displacement of any serious alternative definition of Babi Orthodoxy." and "the sectarian biases of the 2 opposing groups," he fails to give us the information of why the reader should accept that the Babi's are as biased as their persecutors. and "doctrines may be reconstucted with out serious prejudice to either side of the dispute." more 50/50 suggesting both sides as equally causing the dispute, and MacEion's very casual description of the Bab "years he (no caps used) regarded himself as..." leaves us with an examlple of where, I think along with Abbas Amanat and talisman gives us this rift of dogmatic Baha'i scholarship, (my social group) and true free thinking new Baha'i scholarship. That we can see The Bab so casual like, does not impress me from a standpoint that it is something that I could never dream up, indeed, I was raised a Westerner where Rice and Weber portrayed Judas as the victem in Jesus Christ Superstar because he was the sane one, and Jesus was too radical, so I know all about scholars being cute. What I hope happens, is when we encounter each other, that we can quote what we feel is wrong and then the group of us can examine our quotes to see what indeed we have said and what indeed we have not said. Something the free thinking real scholars on talisman, from what I could see, could never do. To be revisited later. au revoir jh From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 22:30:22 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCHpl-0003riC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 01:11 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:11:17 -0500 From: "Michael R. Moum" Ragna Jensen wrote: > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, don't bother. Baha'i Love, Mike > > Thanks, > Ragna > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > ---------- > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 04:54:44 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCO24-0003tVC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 07:49 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <342489E7.35E3@pipelinepc.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: rhoff9@pipelinepc.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:43:51 -0700 From: "J. Richard Hoff" Reply J.Richard Hoff Thanks for the basic information. It is enlightening on this issue J.Richard Hoff ichael R. Moum wrote: > > Ragna Jensen wrote: > > > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? > > CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a > new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued > to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. > > Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of > his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, > don't bother. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > > > > Thanks, > > Ragna > > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > > > ---------- > > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 09:15:12 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCS6b-0003uKC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 12:10 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:09:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hodges Others have defined the terms here. So, I have read a good bit of what is on alt.religion.bahai. Not a pretty site but not as bad as I expected. Several Baha'is are participating regularly (Don, Chris, ...) and trying to guide some of the threads onto productive channels. 90-95% of the content is pure junk or pointless bickering that I am glad is not allowed on our moderated list. But I don't think much harm has resulted and some good has come of it. So it probably doesn't matter much whether it is approved or not. If disapproved, the alt newsgroup will continue. If talk.religion.bahai is approved, it will have wider circulation but with the same content as the alt. group and the alt. group may be abandonded (or maybe not). Tom Hodges On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 16:28:31 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCXuJ-0003rBC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:21 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <199709202221.SAA10879@mx01.together.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" From: dmcadam Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:25:55 -0400 9/20/97 1:11 AM In answer to your last message : >visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of >his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, >don't bother. Dear friends- I deleted the name of the writer referred to above for I don't wish to solicit negative feelings about him. My vote is to allow those who are on this alternative list to do what they want to do, I want no part of it. If we pay no attention to them they will lose whatever little energy they have. In thinking about all this my thoughts as always turn to the subject of purpose. What is their purpose in speaking the way they do? We know that reality consists of both what appears and and seen by our physical senses in addition to what underlies these appearances which is only observed by our spiritual powers of the intellect, faith, reason and intuition. So I say to myself, "what underlies the appearances of these words"?, in some of these negative postings on these unmoderated lists. Several reasons come to mind and none appear to be justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Writings regarding speech and the principles of consultation. I don't like thinking this way. I want to think of higher motives. So I allow mistakes, allow slips and even name-calling once in a while for we all make mistakes. But to see the same friends repeatedly using the same style of delivery, tone and sometimes abusive language tells me that there is an underlying problem in the writer. They say they want freedom of speech. Well, what about me? I need freedom too and I don't feel free to participate in conversations that are constantly bombarding my lower level sensations. It inhibits me and my heart feels hurt at these expressions of a distasteful and uncivilized nature. I think to myself, "do they really want my opinion in their search for truth and unity". If they did would they not be sensitive to my needs too? I am of theirs. How can either of us have true, open and honest freedom to express ourselves if we are reacting constantly out of our lower nature.? The Writings were given to us to free ourselves from the "satanic strength" of the lower nature and translate it into that "heavenly power" available to the soul. Why would we want to keep ourselves anchored down in the depths of the material self when it is so obvious that this will not solve our problems? Instead of criticizing moderation I praise us for having such a facility to act as a traffic cop and regulate the flow. If we really want unmoderated lists, and I believe we should have them, then lets demonstrate our spirituality and there will be no need for moferation. In the meantime until we are more developed I welcome the Moderators whom I found to be most cooperative and helpful. regards, doug -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG@hotmail.com[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 8:26 AM Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai-discuss on talk/alt.religion.bahai [A sampling of opinion from the bahai-discuss listserv on talk.religion.bahai.] From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:08:05 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC91m-0003ucC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 15:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Subject: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:45:09 -0500 X-Sender: persia@persia.com I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:40:02 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC9jN-0003u4C; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:32 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:18:16 -0700 From: Ragna Jensen For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? Thanks, Ragna ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. ---------- I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:10:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCA72-0003ueC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:57 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:55:40 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. Dear Robert, I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a group like BCCA is a blessing. John From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:30:57 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCARR-0003sNC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 17:18 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Reply-To: Graham Sorenson In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:22:40 +0100 From: Graham Sorenson In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer writes >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes >comes out. > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al #with all the attendent spams etc. > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 15:54:37 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCBpq-0003rfC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 18:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34224FCA.115C@TENET.EDU> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-STWB (Win16; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: haukness@tenet.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:11:22 -0700 From: haukness@tenet.edu John B. Cornell wrote: > > Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Dear Robert, > > I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at > alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom > learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a > group like BCCA is a blessing. > > John Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am waiting on the Baha'i scholarship freedom on Noble to sift down before I decide on jumping in or not. As Tom Hodges posted what is my inclination, that the topic is not suited for Noble and is better suited for a place like here as it is not a topic we need to air out with non-Baha'is. I see this as going back to Resurrection and Renewal, the MacEion sympathy bandwagon and talisman. The statements coming out of these 3 camps were as if written in stone, that only a few persecuted and enlightened scholars knew what true freedom is, and the Baha'i Administration and core of non-thinking blind followers thwarting freedom didn't respect free the study of concepts but got hung up on methods. I am waiting to see how this last round of who is anti and un scholarly and who is a bona-fide scholar. What I recognize is that the Baha'i Administration has a long history of surrounding itself with great scholarship, indeed represents the best of scholarship concepts and methods. There is only a rift, to those who I believe see the covenant a lot differenlty than did the Guardian. Now, there is always a lot of posts that no one can call anyone a covenant breaker. This is true, but there are, however well intentioned it may be, lot's of voices among us, I believe, who extend this to mean that we Baha'is cannot discuss the covenant. Which correlates to the current snides that have been taken the past 2 years that Adib Taherzadeh represents a case in point of non-scholarship, because he is just a follower and not independent enough in secular science, but then too, that one cannot write about what he titled his vol5 book, "The Covenant of Bahaullah," because 'no one can talk about this. The problem is, that this then means one cannot come to a conclusion that the problem sometimes, in some of this stuff, is that the Baha'i Covenant is not being taken into proper consideration in the summations bandied about. And if indeed the issue in some of the neo-Baha'i literature, voices in error because of a departure from the Sacred Writings, that it is not true scholarship, to ignore bringing the Covenant into the analysis of the discussion. Thus this is not the same or even allied with calling anyone a covenant breaker, but rather, that a paragraph or a sentence, when held up to analysis, can be found to be at variance with the Baha'i Covenant. If so, this can be important to point out. It is not just the Universal House of Justice which can discuss the nature of obedience, following, and intigrating the covenant, both when it happens and when it doesn't, it is also a topic open to all Baha'is. Thus when MacEoin does a 50/50 study of the Faith "Thge polarization of Azalis and Baha'is resulted in the rapid displacement of any serious alternative definition of Babi Orthodoxy." and "the sectarian biases of the 2 opposing groups," he fails to give us the information of why the reader should accept that the Babi's are as biased as their persecutors. and "doctrines may be reconstucted with out serious prejudice to either side of the dispute." more 50/50 suggesting both sides as equally causing the dispute, and MacEion's very casual description of the Bab "years he (no caps used) regarded himself as..." leaves us with an examlple of where, I think along with Abbas Amanat and talisman gives us this rift of dogmatic Baha'i scholarship, (my social group) and true free thinking new Baha'i scholarship. That we can see The Bab so casual like, does not impress me from a standpoint that it is something that I could never dream up, indeed, I was raised a Westerner where Rice and Weber portrayed Judas as the victem in Jesus Christ Superstar because he was the sane one, and Jesus was too radical, so I know all about scholars being cute. What I hope happens, is when we encounter each other, that we can quote what we feel is wrong and then the group of us can examine our quotes to see what indeed we have said and what indeed we have not said. Something the free thinking real scholars on talisman, from what I could see, could never do. To be revisited later. au revoir jh From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 22:30:22 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCHpl-0003riC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 01:11 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:11:17 -0500 From: "Michael R. Moum" Ragna Jensen wrote: > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, don't bother. Baha'i Love, Mike > > Thanks, > Ragna > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > ---------- > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 04:54:44 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCO24-0003tVC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 07:49 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <342489E7.35E3@pipelinepc.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: rhoff9@pipelinepc.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:43:51 -0700 From: "J. Richard Hoff" Reply J.Richard Hoff Thanks for the basic information. It is enlightening on this issue J.Richard Hoff ichael R. Moum wrote: > > Ragna Jensen wrote: > > > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? > > CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a > new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued > to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. > > Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of > his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, > don't bother. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > > > > Thanks, > > Ragna > > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > > > ---------- > > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 09:15:12 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCS6b-0003uKC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 12:10 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:09:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hodges Others have defined the terms here. So, I have read a good bit of what is on alt.religion.bahai. Not a pretty site but not as bad as I expected. Several Baha'is are participating regularly (Don, Chris, ...) and trying to guide some of the threads onto productive channels. 90-95% of the content is pure junk or pointless bickering that I am glad is not allowed on our moderated list. But I don't think much harm has resulted and some good has come of it. So it probably doesn't matter much whether it is approved or not. If disapproved, the alt newsgroup will continue. If talk.religion.bahai is approved, it will have wider circulation but with the same content as the alt. group and the alt. group may be abandonded (or maybe not). Tom Hodges On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 16:28:31 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCXuJ-0003rBC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:21 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <199709202221.SAA10879@mx01.together.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" From: dmcadam Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:25:55 -0400 9/20/97 1:11 AM In answer to your last message : >visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of >his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, >don't bother. Dear friends- I deleted the name of the writer referred to above for I don't wish to solicit negative feelings about him. My vote is to allow those who are on this alternative list to do what they want to do, I want no part of it. If we pay no attention to them they will lose whatever little energy they have. In thinking about all this my thoughts as always turn to the subject of purpose. What is their purpose in speaking the way they do? We know that reality consists of both what appears and and seen by our physical senses in addition to what underlies these appearances which is only observed by our spiritual powers of the intellect, faith, reason and intuition. So I say to myself, "what underlies the appearances of these words"?, in some of these negative postings on these unmoderated lists. Several reasons come to mind and none appear to be justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Writings regarding speech and the principles of consultation. I don't like thinking this way. I want to think of higher motives. So I allow mistakes, allow slips and even name-calling once in a while for we all make mistakes. But to see the same friends repeatedly using the same style of delivery, tone and sometimes abusive language tells me that there is an underlying problem in the writer. They say they want freedom of speech. Well, what about me? I need freedom too and I don't feel free to participate in conversations that are constantly bombarding my lower level sensations. It inhibits me and my heart feels hurt at these expressions of a distasteful and uncivilized nature. I think to myself, "do they really want my opinion in their search for truth and unity". If they did would they not be sensitive to my needs too? I am of theirs. How can either of us have true, open and honest freedom to express ourselves if we are reacting constantly out of our lower nature.? The Writings were given to us to free ourselves from the "satanic strength" of the lower nature and translate it into that "heavenly power" available to the soul. Why would we want to keep ourselves anchored down in the depths of the material self when it is so obvious that this will not solve our problems? Instead of criticizing moderation I praise us for having such a facility to act as a traffic cop and regulate the flow. If we really want unmoderated lists, and I believe we should have them, then lets demonstrate our spirituality and there will be no need for moferation. In the meantime until we are more developed I welcome the Moderators whom I found to be most cooperative and helpful. regards, doug -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. -- Posted using Reference.COM https://www.reference.com Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog. InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting. ---------- From: FG@hotmail.com[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 9:34 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss on talk.religion.bahai [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] In article <6034ik$d2s@bonkers.taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > > I do not approve of posting material from a mailing list to Usenet, so I > will only comment on the initial message: Given the No vote campaign during the last vote taking place on Bahai listservs, I felt it was justifiable to let others know the same situation seems to be still existing or developing on Bahai-discuss so that those who know little about the Bahai Faith can approach the next vote with their eyes open.... [clip] > -- > This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references > to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 6:20 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 5th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Unless otherwise revised, I will email this draft to the group-mentors on September 28, 1997. THIS IS THE 5th ROUGH DRAFT OF A PROPOSED RFD FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. THIS ROUGH DRAFT IS INTENDED FOR DISCUSSION NOW. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE FINAL VERSION UNTIL SOME TIME IN OCTOBER. HOWEVER, YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED NOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE RFD ORIGINALLY POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 1997, AND REVISED IT HERE. SEVERAL OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALSO MADE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS. ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: ------------ This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai 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, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, until September 23, 1997, over 2,716 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.52 messages per day for 175 days, and 452.67 messages a month for six 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. The proponent intends 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 lower order 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us Subscribe to the following nine listservs via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. Baha'i Announce (addresses needed, is this BIN?) h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu (addresses needed) Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam, alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,uk.religion.misc, uk.religion.interfaith,uk.religion.other-faiths -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 6:33 AM To: Chris Subject: Re: Other listservs? (was Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) -- -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. Jon Bell wrote in article ... > In article <3Q0NpCAudVI0Ewe3@baha.demon.co.uk>, > Chris wrote: > >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > > wrote > >>I'm not sure it's permissible to post a RFD on a webpage, is it? > > > >I'm not an expert on this. Does anyone know the answer or do I just > >brave it out? > > Putting an RFD on a Web page is fine. We did it with the RFDs for > converting news.newusers.questions to moderated status. Just make > sure people know the discussion is supposed to take place in news.groups. All right. Thanks. Chris, if you're still willing to do this, I'd appreciate it. > > Putting the *CFV* (with ballot) on a Web page is a no-no. What's wrong with it? > > -- > Jon Bell Presbyterian College > Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA > [for beginner's Usenet info, see https://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/ ] > ---------- From: C Pemberton-Pigott[SMTP:NEW_DAWN@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 5:39 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re talk.religion.bahai Dear Frederick I have a comment on a small piece of a message from you to the discussion group: >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. I read something about a year or more ago from you on a similar subject - the forming of a t.r.b. forum which made the same statement, i.e. that there needs to be an unmoderated newsgroup group etc etc. I understand that there are already several unmoderated newsgroups on the Baha'i Faith. If I recall correctly, there was another one started last year It is hard from this distance to know why you want to start another group. How many unmoderated groups would be enough to discuss the same topic? Surely it must be a lot of work keeping up with the thread on so many groups. Is it that you want a newsgroup on a _particular_ network? Why? If a group is started by a number of non-Baha'is (and Baha'is) for discussion of the Baha'i Faith I think it is a good idea to state somewhere in the header or charter that no Baha'i Institution is associated with it, otherwise people might think it is in fact being "overseen" somehow by an official organ of the Faith. Not having some sort of disclaimer would have the effect of people thinking it was not really free. It is pretty clear from the name that one could easily think it was started and/or run by some international Institution. As there are so many discussion groups that _are_ associated with the Faith and are moderated, people would naturally assume that the t.r.b. group was also in some way being "directed" or "handled" in a certain way. Yours sincerely Crispin in Swaziland Please do not forward this message to any of those open groups. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 12:08 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: fran@bernstein.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: the TRB vote Dear Fred, Hi. It doesn't really matter whether there was a retraction of the "how to vote no" posting. Once such a thing appeared, it is like "the jury will disregard..." By then people so disposed "knew what to do." There is no reason to think they will ever behave differently. A free forum is inconsistent with dominant Baha'i culture and de facto policy. The rules/culture of the Internet (or anything or anyone else) really are irrelevant to these people, even some of the better intentioned ones; they just don't get this honesty/truth thing! The problem will solve itself, however. The collective grandiose fantasies will never be realized, and the movement will wind up in history's dustbin. The only question is what will happen to all that real estate! --Fran ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 6:47 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Re: the TRB vote ---------- > From: Fran Baker > To: FG@hotmail.com > Cc: fran@bernstein.crhc.uiuc.edu > Subject: the TRB vote > Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 12:08 PM > > Dear Fred, > > Hi. > > It doesn't really matter whether there was a retraction of the > "how to vote no" posting. Once such a thing appeared, it is > like "the jury will disregard..." By then people so disposed > "knew what to do." There is no reason to think they will ever > behave differently. A free forum is inconsistent with > dominant Baha'i culture and de facto policy. The rules/culture > of the Internet (or anything or anyone else) really are irrelevant > to these people, even some of the better intentioned ones; > they just don't get this honesty/truth thing! I appreciate hearing from you.... I have said as much about the retraction from time to time.... Alas, you may be quite right in general.... Just between you and me, I am quite discouraged that the fanatics are using the listservs already to marshall NO votes.... > > The problem will solve itself, however. The collective grandiose > fantasies will never be realized, and the movement will wind up > in history's dustbin. The only question is what will happen to > all that real estate! It could be you're right.... History will have the last word though, and I am mindful that it hasn't been spoken yet.... > > --Fran ---------- c ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 1997 9:00 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: trb Hi Fred. Sorry you got caught by the anti-spam thingy again. I will try to pick up on what you wrote and answer it. If I miss something it will be purely by accident. In message <19970927115136.493.qmail@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> Dear Fred, >>> >>> PLEASE DO NOT POST THIS ON ARB. >>> >>> A couple of points. >>> >>> 1. Thanks for your e-mail re putting the RFD on the Web. As soon as >>> you considre it to be ready I will post it with directions to post >any >>> discussion onto news.groups (and ARB?). I will clear the extra text >>> with you before pointers are put in place. OK? >> >>I appreciate your willingness to help. Thanks. OK. Let me know when it is ready. I will post pointers to those groups which I and Maggie are subscribed to (Talisman, Irfan, Bahai-Discuss, UK Baha'i Exchange, I think). Obviously news.groups is the correct location and I will say so at the start of the RFD. The main reason for posting it on the Web is purely to ensure that it does not disappear so that it can be found however late someone comes into the discussion. >>> 2. Although I am going to be very busy over the next couple of >months I >>> shall do my best to support the campaign for TRB. Can I make a >>> constructive suggestion. I note that the bulk of the opposition to >TRB >>> is actually opposition to yourself. I would suggest that you do not >>> rise to the bait as that seems to exacerbate matters and increase >>> opposition. If I can help in any way, I am more than willing. >> >>Well, the rising to bait thing is a real problem.... I often feel that >>since >>there are so few voices if I let something go by someone will see it >>who doesn't know any better and actually believe it.... I think I am >>getting better though at ignoring some things.... Agreed. It is very difficult at times to let things go when you know they are wrong and no-one seems to be responding. However, a very downbeat approach can have a more positive effect than jumping in with all guns blazing -- if you will pardon the expression. Anyway, I think that the people who really matter DO know the history of the last vote. What we have to do now is to a) change hearts and b) do our best to make friends and not give ammunition to "enemies". >>> Obviously, I cannot answer for others but maybe if there is any >response >>> required, you could let me know and I will post up what I feel to be >>> pertinent. It is, of course, completely up to you. >> >>I'm grateful for the offer.... Case in point: Roger Reini's query >>whether the BCCA's lack of control of trb would be sufficient >>reason to vote NO.... It seems to me that's something that >>needs to be confronted. Why should they control trb? They >>already control srb.... The whole idea of an unmoderated >>newsgroup would be defeated and, besides, trb is not merely >>for Bahai propaganda and is for non-Bahais as well.... I'm not sure whether "control" is the right word. I think most groups that are under the auspices of the BCCA are given a free hand until someone upsets the apple cart and there is a call for action. Certainly UK Baha'i Exchange carries some pretty hairy messages at time. No-one has ever been kicked off but some have been taken to task by the membership for what they posted. Anyway, there are hundreds of Baha'i Sites on the Web, none of which are in any way tied up with BCCA. However, I do take Roger's point and, as you say, it has to be addressed -- the mention in the RFD being one way and possibly a disclaimer in one's sig. file. >>> 3. Thank-you for posting the bits from Baha'i-Discuss but do bear in >>> mind that it is not considered correct to copy material from closed >fora >>> onto Usenet. I suspect that in the end it will do moer damage than >>> good. You, we, have to display the height of diplomacy throughout >the >>> whole exercise otherwise it will certainly fail. Actually, I suspect >it >>> will anyway but we will pray otherwise. >> >>Campaigning for NO votes on Bahai-discuss is acceptable? How >>about confronting that on arb and news.groups? Like you, I feel that organised campaigning is not acceptable. However, I would not attack anyone who said that they were going to vote NO and gives their reasons. What I would try to do is to address their objections and try to remove their fear. I think it is fear, in the end, that is acting against us. To be quite honest with you, I don't expect TRB to be formed this time round. What I do expect is a dimininshed NO vote and a lot of people watching how the discussion goes, both before and after the vote. If there are no fireworks then I feel that the next attempt (next March) will succeed -- or even that this one will. You may have noticed that I have sent a couple of posts to Bahai- Discuss. Both came very much from the heart and reading them afterwards I was surprised that I could get up such a head of steam. Suffice to say that there have been positive responses, both "public" and private. Roger is also posting, and I hope some of the others will, in support of TRB. But in the end, diplomacy is the name of the game and it is diplomacy which will win votes in favour of TRB. Anyway, my offer is still open. If you wish me to address anything posted in a e-mail forum please do let me know. Just don't expect me to subscribe to them all! Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 1:45 AM To: Fredrick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system Fredrick, I'm returning this to you unposted to SRB for 2 reasons. First, the posting is not within the charter of srb which is the discussion of the Bahai Faith, not trb voting history or usenet voting proceedures. Second, it is the concensus of the moderators to post only the official RFD and CFV for talk.religion.bahai when issued. All submittals related to the discussion of the creation of trb (or any other newsgroup) will not be posted and posters of these submittals will be directed to take the discussion to news.groups which is the appropriate place for that discussion. Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Thu Sep 25 10:55:21 1997 > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > id m0xEI2g-0003slC; Thu, 25 Sep 97 13:49 EDT > >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org > >To: "Baha'i Discuss" > >Message-Id: <46923774.10305777@commonlink.com> > >Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system > >Reply-To: drc@commonlink.com > >Organization: Common Link On-Line service > >From: drc@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins) > >Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:32:57 GMT > > > >On 9/25/97 at 11:13 AM, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >FG> I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted > >FG> UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... > > > >Fred - > >I can find no support for this claim. The first time I saw these ideas > >raised was by you. Can you give a URL for a FAQ or other formal > statement to > >support your opinions? > > > I enclose the most widely recognized statement on UseNet > voting.... > > > ------------------------------- > > >From joe@sfbooks.com Thu Feb 13 14:10:52 1997 > Newsgroups: news.groups > Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting (it's back :-( (wasRe: Information > on the upcoming CFV)) > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:10:52 -0600 > > Posted and e-mailed. > > In article <01bc18a5$2f907cc0$299e34ce@rickboat>, "Rick Boatright" > wrote: > > >What Dick tried to do > >in his post was extract for the benefit of the SRB readers who either > can > >not (no usenet access, they get SRB via an email echo) or will not > (time, > >whatever) read news.groups but who have been seeing a good bit of cross > >posts in SRB about the TRB proposal, just what the moderators have > learned > >from OUR reading of news.groups. > > Um, I would personally really appreciate it if you would strongly > discourage people without Usenet access from voting on Usenet > newsgroups... > > >And since none of the news.groups regulars have been willing to write a > >"how news.groups people view the voting process" faq, > > In case I wasn't clear enough... > > I wrote that several months ago, based on prior posts of mine. I posted > it > about three times, asking for comments. > > Then I decided it needed another section, and a revision to remove some > of > the more technical reasons that (in my view) should not be used by > people > unfamiliar with the topic anyway, so I stopped posting it. > > Since then, I've been distracted by (among other things) other FAQs; and > it's become steadily clearer to me that the bona fide *rules* of the > voting > process are a great deal more fluid and less obvious to me than I'd > thought. (In looking at my summary of them in early October for > participants in a debate I was in, I find that indeed I had some errors. > Not reposting that part. Really wish someone from UVV would write it.) > > But what the heck. I might as well go through this again... So here's > the > "Reasons for Voting" part... just as I then posted it. > > Joe Bernstein > > CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals > > You have four available vote options on any given Usenet newsgroup > proposal. These are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. A CANCEL vote is > meaningless unless you've already voted some other way (its effect then > is > to get rid of that vote). An ABSTAIN vote is meaningless in practical > terms, but a few people cast ABSTAIN votes anyway, for various reasons. > > There are very few reasons to cast YES or NO votes which are recognised > as > legitimate. The main purpose of a Usenet newsgroup proposal vote is to > determine whether there are enough Usenet users who are interested in > reading the group; that's the principal reason for YES votes to exist. > The subsidiary purpose of the vote is to keep bad proposals from being > enacted; that's the principal reason for NO votes to exist. There are a > few other reasons which are widely but not universally accepted. > > Nobody enforces the following rules. But if you vote YES disregarding > them, you're asking system administrators worldwide to take up disk > space, > etc. for a group they maybe shouldn't. And if you vote NO disregarding > these rules, you're asking system administrators to stifle other > people's > use of Usenet. Neither of these moves is in the best spirit of Usenet. > > Reasons for YES votes: > > 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. > 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. > > In more detail, > > 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. > > The most obvious case of this is if the proposal creates a new group > that > you want to read. (Similarly, if it moderates or unmoderates a group > you > already read, and you agree with that move.) > > However, there are plenty of other cases too. A proposal might create a > new group, thus removing traffic you're not interested in from a busy > group you *do* read, or maybe just getting rid of flamewars there. For > that matter, the proposal might reduce traffic on a group that's > presently > too busy for you, making it possible for you to read it. > > The main point here is that this kind of YES vote is based on how you > use > Usenet. It is not based on how others use Usenet, or your opinion of > them, except insofar as they affect your use of Usenet. The object is > to > establish that a significant number of actual Usenet readers in fact > want > the proposed change to happen. Otherwise, why on earth should thousands > of system administrators take the trouble and spend the resources to > make > the change? > > This is the main reason for voting YES. > > 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. > > This reason is very restricted. A few people consistently vote YES to > counter the "professional NO voters", presumably because they disagree > with those voters' presumed opinions (see below). These people are > called > "Rubber Stamp" voters. A few people routinely vote YES on moderated > groups, or *.misc groups, to counter similar NO voter contingents. > > Almost any other principle of selection for YES votes, on proposals you > aren't interested in, turns into a matter of political voting, which is > the ultimate Bad Thing in Usenet votes. Usenet votes are meant to > measure > the group's prospects for drawing the interest of readers, so as to > justify the disk space the group will take up on thousands of computers; > political voting for a group you *won't* use is therefore unacceptable. > > [This section needs some of the hand-waving about "for experienced > voters > only"; I now practice "political voting to counter political voting", > and > I'm not hypocritical enough to post an FAQ telling people flatly not to > do > the same. We argued a bit about this in the thread, Lynn Diana > Gazis-Sax > suggesting in particular that such a YES vote should never be cast > without > evidence of traffic, and we finally decided (or at least I did) that it > was more complicated than a beginning FAQ needed.] > > Reasons for NO votes -- there are more of these, *but*, on most > proposals, > none of these actually apply...: > > 1) The proposal is bad for a group I expect to read in the future. > 2) A NO vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. > > Well, OK, that's still two. But then come the details: > > 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its > readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by > introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, > or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). > > 1) b) The proposal establishes a group I would like to read, but does it > in such a bad way that it's better to vote it down and try again in six > months; I wouldn't find the badly established group worth reading. > > [I no longer trust that these are self-explanatory, and hope to flesh > them > out just a bit. Stealing some space from the following longer list.] > > 2) a) I systematically vote NO on (all groups, moderated groups, *.misc > groups, etc.) for Usenet policy reasons. > > As applied to all groups, this is "professional NO voting", and the > people > who do it are called "Wet Blankets". There's around 20 of them (as > opposed to around a dozen "Rubber Stamps"). The net effect of the Wet > Blankets and the Rubber Stamps is that you actually need around 108 > *other* YES votes to pass any proposal, because there's around 8 more NO > votes than YES ones coming your way from these folks. As far as anyone > knows, the Wet Blankets and Rubber Stamps vote the way they do precisely > in order to affect that number. > > Voting NO on moderated, *.misc, or whatever groups is also a political > statement about what you want Usenet to be like, a more focused one. > > In any event, none of these reasons is something you can do just at > random. If you're going to justify your vote on Usenet policy reasons, > you pretty much have to apply those same reasons to every relevant vote. > > 2) b) The name is bad and will thus harm Usenet namespace. > > This is probably the most accepted of these reasons by people familiar > with the newsgroup creation process, but it comes as the biggest > surprise > to others who aren't familiar with it. > > Good names for newsgroups matter because newsgroup names are all that's > available to many of the people who are considering whether they're > interested in the group, whether to post to it, etc. > > If a group is badly named, it might fail to attract the audience it's > aimed at. For example, if a group about anthropology were named > soc.culture.research, it would probably not be found by a lot of > anthropologists. > > Or it might attract the wrong audience. That same group, for example, > would probably (given the nature of other soc.culture.* groups) confuse > lots of people, but some people would think it was a group for > researchers > in general to discuss what it's like to be a researcher. > > Or it might attract no audience at all, but sit there taking up a name > that somebody else might have a good use for. Say your misnamed > soc.culture.research was a moderated group, and you rejected all those > posts from researchers because they were off-topic. Well, they might > have > a use for that group, but you're just sitting there taking up their > space. > > (In reality, these are just examples. The anthropology group is named > sci.anthropology, as it should be; there is no soc.culture.research, and > if it were proposed now, it would probably be renamed > soc.subculture.research, in keeping with a recently proposed > distinction.) > > [Note: deliberately boring example chosen to evade the misunderstanding > that resulted when my example was a group on terrorism and drugs, named > humanities.sinology. Improvements would be appreciated, but I think > extreme and therefore fun examples will, in general, fail similarly. > Maybe the example should be a group about embroidery of pictures of > kittens, named humanities.sinology? > Embarrassed, I also note how close this comes to sc.scientists, which > I > thought Mr. Arromdee was joking about when he brought it up...] > > [That note, like most of these, was in August. But now that > soc.subculture.cyber-psychos was defeated, what next? Anyway...] > > 2) c) The moderators are bad and will thus create a bad newsgroup where > (in namespace) a better newsgroup could have gone. > > It would be a real shame if, for example, a proposal for > comp.databases.cics came forward with me as moderator. I've used CICS > for > data entry, but I wouldn't begin to know how to moderate a newsgroup > about > it properly. And there are lots of CICS users out there (or anyway > there > were a few years ago) who could do it better, and who could use the > group. If the proposal with me as moderator passed, they'd have a very > hard time getting rid of me, due to general Usenet policy. So they'd > probably have to try to create a whole new group -- maybe > comp.databases.cics.forreal? And they'd have a very hard time > convincing > system administrators to accept the new one on top of my bad one. > > [Note: first person used to guarantee that the example chosen wouldn't > get mad. :-) Alternatives welcome... I'm honestly not sure, though, > if > first person were removed, that this paragraph would work at all wel.] > > 2) d) The charter is bad (see 2) c)). > > This reason breaks down into two very different aspects. > > Unmoderated groups' charters are basically statements of intent, and not > much more. They should be taken seriously during debate, because during > debate, many of the people who will form the new newsgroup are trying to > reach a consensus about what it should be like through that discussion. > But in practice, for someone voting on Usenet policy grounds, an > unmoderated group's charter would have to be pretty bad to justify a NO > vote. > > (However, it's also reasonable to say the charter is bad because the > group > is doomed to failure as an unmoderated group, say because it's in a part > of namespace that's particularly heavily infested with spam or trolls.) > > Moderated groups' charters amount to an agreement between the moderators > and the readers. There is currently no real way to enforce that > agreement, so this is still not the best reason to worry about the > charter. But the charter does give some indication of what the > moderators > are going to have available to them, telling them how to do their job, > and > if it's really badly thought out, then they're likely to have problems > from the start. > > (It's reasonable, too, to say a charter is bad because moderation will > doom the group to failure, say because of delays involved.) > > In any event, charters which violate even the extreme free speech > beliefs > prevalent on Usenet are bad. A NO vote is justified on any group whose > charter encourages postings which *in and of themselves* pose persons > nonconsensual risk of bodily harm and/or loss of property other than > trademark rights. Examples of such a group include newsgroups for the > posting of private credit card numbers, or for the posting of lists of > people in various areas known to be on vacation at a given time. > Newsgroups where violence is advocated are, however, *not* considered to > constitute such risks. > > [A quick sketch, the last two sentences. The first two come from the > discussion of the first draft. The exact wording owes much to Russ > Allbery and especially Rosemarie Ventura, whom I've unfortunately never > seen here again.] > > 2) e) The proponents have behaved so badly that a NO vote is an > appropriate way of telling proponents not to do so in future. > > Some people vote NO when proponents refuse to demonstrate that there > will > be enough traffic (i.e., postings and/or readership) to justify the > group's existence. That's probably the most common form of NO vote of > this type. > > One reason for this type of vote is that when traffic isn't shown to > exist, very often traffic never will exist, and the group is badly > conceived. An excellent example is soc.culture.scientists [thanks Mr. > Arromdee! Dejanews proved you right!]. Another is that refusal to > provide information about traffic may be an indication of a > disingenuously > named group, which is being promoted for political reasons or even just > as > a joke. [Wording taken from Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax.] > > Another example would be if the proponents made an agreement in > the debate about the group, but failed to live up to that agreement in > the > actual Call for Votes (CFV). In that case, a NO vote would amount to > telling proponents in general that that isn't acceptable behaviour. > > A third example would be a proposal made solely for the sake of causing > trouble. It's hard to tell such a proposal from one simply made by an > inexperienced or annoying person, but one frequently used clue is when > the > proponent refuses to answer any concerns raised about the group. In > that > case, a NO vote is again on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour. > > However, NO votes for this reason run a real risk of turning into > personality or (horrors) political voting. For this reason, not > everyone > involved with running Usenet newsgroup creation processes approves of NO > votes for this reason. > > [This note is February 1997. I think some readers of srb may be tempted > to > view the trb proposal in this light, and vote NO using these grounds. > It > is my opinion that such a vote would be improperly cast, in that while > Mr. > Glaysher is rather far from my ideal proponent, he clearly believes that > what he's doing is right and he certainly hasn't made any false > promises. > I should also note that if you vote NO on proposals whose proponents > fail > to demonstrate sufficient traffic, you should really do it across the > board, not just on a proposal you happen to dislike... The whole > document > is my opinions, basically, though with the help in formulating them of > some > other people; so there's some more of my opinions.] > -- > Joe Bernstein, writer, bank consultant, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com > speaking for myself and nobody else https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/ > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 1:54 AM To: Fredrick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system Please accept my apology for rejecting a post that wasn't even to srb. I mistakenly put your posting to bahai-discuss in the wrong folder and addressed it as an srb submittal. Again I apologise for this oversight on my part. Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Teri Rhan wrote: > Fredrick, > I'm returning this to you unposted to SRB for 2 reasons. First, the > posting is not within the charter of srb which is the discussion of the > Bahai Faith, not trb voting history or usenet voting proceedures. > > Second, it is the concensus of the moderators to post only the official > RFD and CFV for talk.religion.bahai when issued. All submittals related > to the discussion of the creation of trb (or any other newsgroup) will not > be posted and posters of these submittals will be directed to take the > discussion to news.groups which is the appropriate place for that > discussion. > > Teri Rhan > trhan@serv.net > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Thu Sep 25 10:55:21 1997 > > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > > id m0xEI2g-0003slC; Thu, 25 Sep 97 13:49 EDT > > >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org > > >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > > >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > > >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > > > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org > > >To: "Baha'i Discuss" > > >Message-Id: <46923774.10305777@commonlink.com> > > >Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system > > >Reply-To: drc@commonlink.com > > >Organization: Common Link On-Line service > > >From: drc@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins) > > >Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:32:57 GMT > > > > > >On 9/25/97 at 11:13 AM, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > >FG> I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted > > >FG> UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... > > > > > >Fred - > > >I can find no support for this claim. The first time I saw these ideas > > >raised was by you. Can you give a URL for a FAQ or other formal > > statement to > > >support your opinions? > > > > > > I enclose the most widely recognized statement on UseNet > > voting.... > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > >From joe@sfbooks.com Thu Feb 13 14:10:52 1997 > > Newsgroups: news.groups > > Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting (it's back :-( (wasRe: Information > > on the upcoming CFV)) > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:10:52 -0600 > > > > Posted and e-mailed. > > > > In article <01bc18a5$2f907cc0$299e34ce@rickboat>, "Rick Boatright" > > wrote: > > > > >What Dick tried to do > > >in his post was extract for the benefit of the SRB readers who either > > can > > >not (no usenet access, they get SRB via an email echo) or will not > > (time, > > >whatever) read news.groups but who have been seeing a good bit of cross > > >posts in SRB about the TRB proposal, just what the moderators have > > learned > > >from OUR reading of news.groups. > > > > Um, I would personally really appreciate it if you would strongly > > discourage people without Usenet access from voting on Usenet > > newsgroups... > > > > >And since none of the news.groups regulars have been willing to write a > > >"how news.groups people view the voting process" faq, > > > > In case I wasn't clear enough... > > > > I wrote that several months ago, based on prior posts of mine. I posted > > it > > about three times, asking for comments. > > > > Then I decided it needed another section, and a revision to remove some > > of > > the more technical reasons that (in my view) should not be used by > > people > > unfamiliar with the topic anyway, so I stopped posting it. > > > > Since then, I've been distracted by (among other things) other FAQs; and > > it's become steadily clearer to me that the bona fide *rules* of the > > voting > > process are a great deal more fluid and less obvious to me than I'd > > thought. (In looking at my summary of them in early October for > > participants in a debate I was in, I find that indeed I had some errors. > > Not reposting that part. Really wish someone from UVV would write it.) > > > > But what the heck. I might as well go through this again... So here's > > the > > "Reasons for Voting" part... just as I then posted it. > > > > Joe Bernstein > > > > CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals > > > > You have four available vote options on any given Usenet newsgroup > > proposal. These are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. A CANCEL vote is > > meaningless unless you've already voted some other way (its effect then > > is > > to get rid of that vote). An ABSTAIN vote is meaningless in practical > > terms, but a few people cast ABSTAIN votes anyway, for various reasons. > > > > There are very few reasons to cast YES or NO votes which are recognised > > as > > legitimate. The main purpose of a Usenet newsgroup proposal vote is to > > determine whether there are enough Usenet users who are interested in > > reading the group; that's the principal reason for YES votes to exist. > > The subsidiary purpose of the vote is to keep bad proposals from being > > enacted; that's the principal reason for NO votes to exist. There are a > > few other reasons which are widely but not universally accepted. > > > > Nobody enforces the following rules. But if you vote YES disregarding > > them, you're asking system administrators worldwide to take up disk > > space, > > etc. for a group they maybe shouldn't. And if you vote NO disregarding > > these rules, you're asking system administrators to stifle other > > people's > > use of Usenet. Neither of these moves is in the best spirit of Usenet. > > > > Reasons for YES votes: > > > > 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. > > 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds.. > > > > In more detail, > > > > 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. > > > > The most obvious case of this is if the proposal creates a new group > > that > > you want to read. (Similarly, if it moderates or unmoderates a group > > you > > already read, and you agree with that move.) > > > > However, there are plenty of other cases too. A proposal might create a > > new group, thus removing traffic you're not interested in from a busy > > group you *do* read, or maybe just getting rid of flamewars there. For > > that matter, the proposal might reduce traffic on a group that's > > presently > > too busy for you, making it possible for you to read it. > > > > The main point here is that this kind of YES vote is based on how you > > use > > Usenet. It is not based on how others use Usenet, or your opinion of > > them, except insofar as they affect your use of Usenet. The object is > > to > > establish that a significant number of actual Usenet readers in fact > > want > > the proposed change to happen. Otherwise, why on earth should thousands > > of system administrators take the trouble and spend the resources to > > make > > the change? > > > > This is the main reason for voting YES. > > > > 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. > > > > This reason is very restricted. A few people consistently vote YES to > > counter the "professional NO voters", presumably because they disagree > > with those voters' presumed opinions (see below). These people are > > called > > "Rubber Stamp" voters. A few people routinely vote YES on moderated > > groups, or *.misc groups, to counter similar NO voter contingents. > > > > Almost any other principle of selection for YES votes, on proposals you > > aren't interested in, turns into a matter of political voting, which is > > the ultimate Bad Thing in Usenet votes. Usenet votes are meant to > > measure > > the group's prospects for drawing the interest of readers, so as to > > justify the disk space the group will take up on thousands of computers; > > political voting for a group you *won't* use is therefore unacceptable. > > > > [This section needs some of the hand-waving about "for experienced > > voters > > only"; I now practice "political voting to counter political voting", > > and > > I'm not hypocritical enough to post an FAQ telling people flatly not to > > do > > the same. We argued a bit about this in the thread, Lynn Diana > > Gazis-Sax > > suggesting in particular that such a YES vote should never be cast > > without > > evidence of traffic, and we finally decided (or at least I did) that it > > was more complicated than a beginning FAQ needed.] > > > > Reasons for NO votes -- there are more of these, *but*, on most > > proposals, > > none of these actually apply...: > > > > 1) The proposal is bad for a group I expect to read in the future. > > 2) A NO vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. > > > > Well, OK, that's still two. But then come the details: > > > > 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its > > readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by > > introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, > > or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). > > > > 1) b) The proposal establishes a group I would like to read, but does it > > in such a bad way that it's better to vote it down and try again in six > > months; I wouldn't find the badly established group worth reading. > > > > [I no longer trust that these are self-explanatory, and hope to flesh > > them > > out just a bit. Stealing some space from the following longer list.] > > > > 2) a) I systematically vote NO on (all groups, moderated groups, *.misc > > groups, etc.) for Usenet policy reasons. > > > > As applied to all groups, this is "professional NO voting", and the > > people > > who do it are called "Wet Blankets". There's around 20 of them (as > > opposed to around a dozen "Rubber Stamps"). The net effect of the Wet > > Blankets and the Rubber Stamps is that you actually need around 108 > > *other* YES votes to pass any proposal, because there's around 8 more NO > > votes than YES ones coming your way from these folks. As far as anyone > > knows, the Wet Blankets and Rubber Stamps vote the way they do precisely > > in order to affect that number. > > > > Voting NO on moderated, *.misc, or whatever groups is also a political > > statement about what you want Usenet to be like, a more focused one. > > > > In any event, none of these reasons is something you can do just at > > random. If you're going to justify your vote on Usenet policy reasons, > > you pretty much have to apply those same reasons to every relevant vote. > > > > 2) b) The name is bad and will thus harm Usenet namespace. > > > > This is probably the most accepted of these reasons by people familiar > > with the newsgroup creation process, but it comes as the biggest > > surprise > > to others who aren't familiar with it. > > > > Good names for newsgroups matter because newsgroup names are all that's > > available to many of the people who are considering whether they're > > interested in the group, whether to post to it, etc. > > > > If a group is badly named, it might fail to attract the audience it's > > aimed at. For example, if a group about anthropology were named > > soc.culture.research, it would probably not be found by a lot of > > anthropologists. > > > > Or it might attract the wrong audience. That same group, for example, > > would probably (given the nature of other soc.culture.* groups) confuse > > lots of people, but some people would think it was a group for > > researchers > > in general to discuss what it's like to be a researcher. > > > > Or it might attract no audience at all, but sit there taking up a name > > that somebody else might have a good use for. Say your misnamed > > soc.culture.research was a moderated group, and you rejected all those > > posts from researchers because they were off-topic. Well, they might > > have > > a use for that group, but you're just sitting there taking up their > > space. > > > > (In reality, these are just examples. The anthropology group is named > > sci.anthropology, as it should be; there is no soc.culture.research, and > > if it were proposed now, it would probably be renamed > > soc.subculture.research, in keeping with a recently proposed > > distinction.) > > > > [Note: deliberately boring example chosen to evade the misunderstanding > > that resulted when my example was a group on terrorism and drugs, named > > humanities.sinology. Improvements would be appreciated, but I think > > extreme and therefore fun examples will, in general, fail similarly. > > Maybe the example should be a group about embroidery of pictures of > > kittens, named humanities.sinology? > > Embarrassed, I also note how close this comes to sc.scientists, which > > I > > thought Mr. Arromdee was joking about when he brought it up...] > > > > [That note, like most of these, was in August. But now that > > soc.subculture.cyber-psychos was defeated, what next? Anyway...] > > > > 2) c) The moderators are bad and will thus create a bad newsgroup where > > (in namespace) a better newsgroup could have gone. > > > > It would be a real shame if, for example, a proposal for > > comp.databases.cics came forward with me as moderator. I've used CICS > > for > > data entry, but I wouldn't begin to know how to moderate a newsgroup > > about > > it properly. And there are lots of CICS users out there (or anyway > > there > > were a few years ago) who could do it better, and who could use the > > group. If the proposal with me as moderator passed, they'd have a very > > hard time getting rid of me, due to general Usenet policy. So they'd > > probably have to try to create a whole new group -- maybe > > comp.databases.cics.forreal? And they'd have a very hard time > > convincing > > system administrators to accept the new one on top of my bad one. > > > > [Note: first person used to guarantee that the example chosen wouldn't > > get mad. :-) Alternatives welcome... I'm honestly not sure, though, > > if > > first person were removed, that this paragraph would work at all wel.] > > > > 2) d) The charter is bad (see 2) c)). > > > > This reason breaks down into two very different aspects. > > > > Unmoderated groups' charters are basically statements of intent, and not > > much more. They should be taken seriously during debate, because during > > debate, many of the people who will form the new newsgroup are trying to > > reach a consensus about what it should be like through that discussion. > > But in practice, for someone voting on Usenet policy grounds, an > > unmoderated group's charter would have to be pretty bad to justify a NO > > vote. > > > > (However, it's also reasonable to say the charter is bad because the > > group > > is doomed to failure as an unmoderated group, say because it's in a part > > of namespace that's particularly heavily infested with spam or trolls.) > > > > Moderated groups' charters amount to an agreement between the moderators > > and the readers. There is currently no real way to enforce that > > agreement, so this is still not the best reason to worry about the > > charter. But the charter does give some indication of what the > > moderators > > are going to have available to them, telling them how to do their job, > > and > > if it's really badly thought out, then they're likely to have problems > > from the start. > > > > (It's reasonable, too, to say a charter is bad because moderation will > > doom the group to failure, say because of delays involved.) > > > > In any event, charters which violate even the extreme free speech > > beliefs > > prevalent on Usenet are bad. A NO vote is justified on any group whose > > charter encourages postings which *in and of themselves* pose persons > > nonconsensual risk of bodily harm and/or loss of property other than > > trademark rights. Examples of such a group include newsgroups for the > > posting of private credit card numbers, or for the posting of lists of > > people in various areas known to be on vacation at a given time. > > Newsgroups where violence is advocated are, however, *not* considered to > > constitute such risks. > > > > [A quick sketch, the last two sentences. The first two come from the > > discussion of the first draft. The exact wording owes much to Russ > > Allbery and especially Rosemarie Ventura, whom I've unfortunately never > > seen here again.] > > > > 2) e) The proponents have behaved so badly that a NO vote is an > > appropriate way of telling proponents not to do so in future. > > > > Some people vote NO when proponents refuse to demonstrate that there > > will > > be enough traffic (i.e., postings and/or readership) to justify the > > group's existence. That's probably the most common form of NO vote of > > this type. > > > > One reason for this type of vote is that when traffic isn't shown to > > exist, very often traffic never will exist, and the group is badly > > conceived. An excellent example is soc.culture.scientists [thanks Mr. > > Arromdee! Dejanews proved you right!]. Another is that refusal to > > provide information about traffic may be an indication of a > > disingenuously > > named group, which is being promoted for political reasons or even just > > as > > a joke. [Wording taken from Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax.] > > > > Another example would be if the proponents made an agreement in > > the debate about the group, but failed to live up to that agreement in > > the > > actual Call for Votes (CFV). In that case, a NO vote would amount to > > telling proponents in general that that isn't acceptable behaviour. > > > > A third example would be a proposal made solely for the sake of causing > > trouble. It's hard to tell such a proposal from one simply made by an > > inexperienced or annoying person, but one frequently used clue is when > > the > > proponent refuses to answer any concerns raised about the group. In > > that > > case, a NO vote is again on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour. > > > > However, NO votes for this reason run a real risk of turning into > > personality or (horrors) political voting. For this reason, not > > everyone > > involved with running Usenet newsgroup creation processes approves of NO > > votes for this reason. > > > > [This note is February 1997. I think some readers of srb may be tempted > > to > > view the trb proposal in this light, and vote NO using these grounds. > > It > > is my opinion that such a vote would be improperly cast, in that while > > Mr. > > Glaysher is rather far from my ideal proponent, he clearly believes that > > what he's doing is right and he certainly hasn't made any false > > promises. > > I should also note that if you vote NO on proposals whose proponents > > fail > > to demonstrate sufficient traffic, you should really do it across the > > board, not just on a proposal you happen to dislike... The whole > > document > > is my opinions, basically, though with the help in formulating them of > > some > > other people; so there's some more of my opinions.] > > -- > > Joe Bernstein, writer, bank consultant, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com > > speaking for myself and nobody else https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/ > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 9:31 AM To: Group Mentors Subject: talk.religion.bahai: 2nd proposal I would like to propose for the second time the following RFD for talk.religion.bahai. The first proposal was defeated on March 27, 1997, 157 to 691. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions and advice regarding how to get it passed this time around. I'm particularly worried that listservs are being used by members of the Bahai Faith who oppose freedom of speech and wish to retain complete control over any discussion whatsoever about the religion. I believe that during the last discussion and voting periods a campaign was waged on three Bahai listservs that was instrumental in the defeat of the proposal at that time. During the last few weeks a similar atmosphere of discussion adamantly opposed to any unmoderated forum has begun to appear on a list called Bahai-Discuss. If you can offer any ideas on how to effectively deal with this apparent problem, already developing, I would be deeply grateful.... Let me mention that the following rough draft is essentially the original RFD now put through five full revisions during the last month on alt.religion.bahai. Many people have contributed already to its writing, offering many worthwhile ideas that should increase its chances of passing this time. Someone has suggested that all followup discussion should be posted to both news.groups and alt.religion.bahai so that those interested will not miss it. Is that acceptable procedure? I look forward to hearing from an assigned group-mentor as soon as possible. Thank you. -- Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. Rough Draft Follows: ------------------------ This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai 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, 10.84 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 Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.99 messages per day for 179 days, and 477.17 messages a month for six 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. The proponent intends 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 lower order 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us Subscribe to the following eight listservs via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i-Announce bahai-announce@bcca.org h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu (addresses needed) Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam, alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,uk.religion.misc, uk.religion.interfaith,uk.religion.other-faiths uk.bahai.exchange -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 9:21 AM To: SRB Subject: Re: evil in Bahai Writings Marco Polo wrote in article <60m8df$keh@itchy.serv.net>... [clip] You choose some of my favorite passages! > Written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf: > > "We must never take one sentence in the Teachings and isolate it from the > rest... We know absence of light is darkness, but no one would assert > darkness was not a fact. It exists even though it is the absence of > something else. So EVIL EXISTS, too, and we cannot close our eyes to it, > even though it is a negative existence" (Lights of Guidance, 3rd ed., > 513-514; emphasis added). > > Again on the Guardian's behalf: > > "Shoghi Effendi wishes me to inform you that what is GENERALLY CALLED evil > spirit is a purely imaginary creation and has no reality whatever. But AS > TO EVIL, there is no doubt that it exerts a VERY STRONG INFLUENCE both in > this world and in the next" (LOG, 523; emphasis added). > > The Universal House of Justice states that "evil is negative and has no > existence IN ITS OWN RIGHT, but that DOES NOT MEAN that there is NO POWER > in evil." The House then quotes a letter written on the Guardian's behalf: > "Evil forces DO TAKE CONTROL of our life, but it is within our power to > free ourselves from falling under their subjection" (LOG, 521; emphasis > added). > > My comments: > > The Guardian explicitly states that "evil exists" as a "fact" in the same > way darkness exists and is a fact; and he calls this a "negative > existence". Now consider that when darkness engulfs us, it's "merely" an > absence or nothingness -- the lack of some positive force -- but it can > feel downright palpable. More to the point, when we wander around in > darkness, it can lead us over the edge of, say, an ice fissure. The fissure > itself "doesn't exist"; it's simply a yawning emptiness, the cessation of > solid footing. But if it is deep enough (i.e., sufficiently "nonexistent"), > the resulting journey through nothingness can smash every bone in our > bodies. Blistering cold then closes in, and of course the cold also doesn't > exist -- it's just an absence of heat. Somehow this lack of "reality" > doesn't stop it from turning our lifeblood to icicles, as it seeps out of > our splintered forms. How many of us, in such circumstances, are prepared > to console ourselves with one last fading but triumphant thought that none > of this is real -- not the pain, not the darkness, not the crevice, not the > cold: It's all "nonexistent"? I think of Robert Hayden's fine lines, "It's like you been there, brother, been there, the scarred young lifer said." > > The most powerful force in nature is a void or vacuum. If you doubt this, > try stepping outside a space station without a pressure suit, and feel for > yourself how "unreal" it is! On earth, a sudden vacuum, if sufficiently > large, will implode with greater force than a nuclear bomb. Even a > relatively weak low-pressure area can whip up a tornado capable of > flattening an entire town. These forces are "nonexistent" in the same sense > that evil is nonexistent -- that is, in a specialized, technical sense. > This in no way justifies closing our eyes to the power and danger of these > negatives forces and pretending they can't destroy us. And this is precisely it.... "a specialized, technical," let me add, philosophical sense.... > > Baha'u'llah writes that "the actions of man himself breed a profusion of > satanic power"; that "sedition, contention, conflict and the like are the > primary factors which provoke the appearance of the satanic spirit." > Obviously the "satanic power" and "satanic spirit" of which He speaks are > not positive realities: They are a spiritual void or negativity, indicating > -- as He says in the next sentence -- that "the Holy Spirit hath ever > shunned such matters" (Gleanings, 176-177). But what happens to us when we > are "shunned" by the Holy Spirit? A letter on the Guardian's behalf states: > "There is no force of heaven or earth that can affect [the friends] if they > place themselves wholly under the influence of the Holy Spirit and under > its guidance. Such individuals who are subject to the negative influences > of the world are those who are not properly consecrated in the Faith" (LOG, > 520). In other words (my view), when we by our own actions drive away the > power of divine protection, we become vulnerable to the "negative > influences" of our environment. Even though this "profusion of satanic > power" may be triggered from within ourselves, it behaves precisely like an > external force. Have you never felt the negativity of the world acting upon > our souls like a spiritual undertow, seeking to drag us into itself? I think Baha'u'llah's tragic overtones here are worth contemplating as well.... > > Christians (among others) may in some cases have some mistaken notions > about how evil works, where it comes from, and the like. But I suspect many > of them have far deeper insight than we do into the reality of evil and the > threat it poses. Our typical approach (as described by the Guardian; see > above) has long been to "take one sentence from the Teachings and isolate > it from the rest", thus missing the larger picture. So long as we do this, > we'll continue to disappoint seekers who happen to be wrestling with this > troubling and often painful question. This is how I see it too. And in this world, what thoughtful person is not confronted and appalled, at one time or another, with the reality of evil.... Marco, I too have been to China.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Jonathan Grobe[SMTP:grobe@worf.netins.net] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:23 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: mentors@acpub.duke.edu Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai: 2nd proposal Group mentors does not assign people as mentors. People volunteer if they are interested in a particular proposal. [I provide a certain amount of preliminary responses to lots of the inquiries here.] Drop the "Unmoderated discussion" in the Newsgroup discussion line (it is redundant and the vast majority of groups are this) Regarding your question about followup discussion also to alt.religion.bahai contact Russ Allbery and/or group-advice@isc.org [While the standard has traditionally been just news.groups, I don't know if an additional group would be allowed in a Followup-To header if you requested it.] Concerning the compaigns in the listservs I suggest you try to subscribe to all of them and respond to that discussion. The UVV is who you should be discussing how to have a clean campaign with. Your behavior (in posting the RFD to groups like news.admin.censorship and the pointers in all the other religion groups (which appear irrelevant) suggests you are running a questionable campaign too.) Do you have permission to post the RFD (either because they are unmoderated or you have contacted the moderator) the various mailing lists? I don't see why the amount of discussion there was about talk.religion.bahai is relevant to the Rationale (while the amount of traffic on alt.religion.bahai is an indication of interest-- and round the averages to whole numbers). Jonathan Grobe. Note all my comments on the group mentors list are simply my opinion. On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I would like to propose for the second time the following RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. The first proposal was defeated on March 27, 1997, > 157 to 691. > > I'd very much appreciate any suggestions and advice regarding > how to get it passed this time around. I'm particularly worried that > listservs are being used by members of the Bahai Faith who > oppose freedom of speech and wish to retain complete control > over any discussion whatsoever about the religion. I believe that > during the last discussion and voting periods a campaign was > waged on three Bahai listservs that was instrumental in the > defeat of the proposal at that time. During the last few weeks a > similar atmosphere of discussion adamantly opposed to any > unmoderated forum has begun to appear on a list called > Bahai-Discuss. If you can offer any ideas on how to effectively > deal with this apparent problem, already developing, I would > be deeply grateful.... > > Let me mention that the following rough draft is essentially the > original RFD now put through five full revisions during the last > month on alt.religion.bahai. Many people have contributed > already to its writing, offering many worthwhile ideas that > should increase its chances of passing this time. > > Someone has suggested that all followup discussion should > be posted to both news.groups and alt.religion.bahai so that > those interested will not miss it. Is that acceptable procedure? > > I look forward to hearing from an assigned group-mentor as > soon as possible. > > Thank you. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > FG@hotmail.com > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > Rough Draft Follows: > ------------------------ > This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details > appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to > news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. > > Newsgroup line: > talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. > > RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists > specifically for discussion of the Bahai 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, 10.84 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 Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.99 messages per day for > 179 days, and 477.17 messages a month for six 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. > > The proponent intends 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 lower order 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. > > The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted > practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* > hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. > > CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, > teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > discussion. > > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith > is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large > ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, > and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > > Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, > but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate > terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and > readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive > crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and > voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup. > > Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > END CHARTER. > > PROCEDURE: > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > questions about the process. > > DISTRIBUTION: > > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, > soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, > soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai > > and the following mailing lists: > > Academic discussion of Bahai faith > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Bahai Studies > Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > Subscribe to the following eight listservs via > bahai-request@bcca.org > > Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) > Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) > Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) > Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) > Baha'i Singles (Singles) > Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) > Baha'i Women Converse (Women) > Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) > > Baha'i-Announce bahai-announce@bcca.org > > h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu (addresses needed) > > Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, > soc.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, > talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam, > alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,uk.religion.misc, > uk.religion.interfaith,uk.religion.other-faiths > uk.bahai.exchange > > -- > Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > > ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:10 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Analysis by UHJ letter's recipient In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. This evening I found in my e-mail box the following analysis by Catherine Woodgold, my wife, the person to whom the letter of the Universal House of Justice was addressed. She told me that it was written for the Baha'i lists. It is entirely her own thing. I would like to say that there are different views of reality, and it would really be great if we could all get along, accepting our varied perceptions. Peace, Michael Date: Mon Sep 29 18:39:03 1997 From: (Catherine woodgold) Subject: Analysis of UHJ's response To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca >... The House of Justice hopes that the following comments will be >of assistance to you in understanding the step that was taken in >Michael's case. I didn't ask them to explain it to me nor to help me understand it. I told them they ought to have provided an explanation to Michael. It is a matter of correct protocol and formality to address an explanation to Michael directly. Whether I understand what happened is of little importance; it didn't happen to me. >... Its foundation, Baha'is believe, is the revelation of God for >our day and its focal teaching is the oneness of humankind. ... That's what Michael kept saying. >The mission that has >been laid by Baha'u'llah on those who recognize and would follow >Him is the promotion of the unification of the earth's peoples in >one global society guided by Divine principle. In order for the >Baha'i community to discharge this responsibility, it must itself >remain united. It must demonstrate to a skeptical age that human >beings, in all their Diversity, can learn to live and work as a >single people in one global homeland. Having a united community which was created by allowing only those who agree with each other to be members has been done many times already. What would be new would be to have a united community which includes all types of people: exactly the opposite of what they're doing by expelling Michael. > The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the >unity of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the >Covenant which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings >make it indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings >thus set forth cannot be separated from the institutional means >their Author has provided for their promotion. Particularly is >this true of the interpretive functions with which the Guardianship >has been endowed and the ultimate decision-making power invested in >the Universal House of Justice, both of which are assured of >unfailing Divine guidance. I wonder why they mention the Guardianship here. Are they trying to imply that the UHJ carries on the Guardianship function? I can't see any other reason for mentioning it here; perhaps I'm missing something. My understanding is that there is no person or institution currently carrying on the Guardianship, along with the authority to interpret the Writings, since the passage of Shoghi Effendi. They say that the decision-making power of the UHJ has Divine guidance. Is that what they really mean; or do they also mean that the letter-writing, explaining, understanding and interpreting carried on by the UHJ also has unfailing Divine guidance? In other words, are they only claiming Divine guidance for their decision to expell Michael, or are they also claiming unfailing Divine guidance for their understanding of the Writings and their attempt to impose their own understanding of them on Michael? Furthermore, will they admit the possibility that any Divine guidance they may receive to guide their decisions may sometimes come in the form of unsolicited letters of advice from Baha'i's, such as the letter from Michael? > One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of >belief Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion >which believes ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one >is -- or can ever be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any >discredit attach to one who, having decided, for whatever reason, >that he or she cannot continue to accept the Teachings, may decide >to renounce them. Michael did not renounce the Teachings. >What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines >the unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional >authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to >have accepted. Michael did not challenge the institutional authority. He always acknowledged that the UHJ had sole authority to make the major decisions of the Baha'i community. > This is precisely what Michael has persisted in doing. He has not. >He has made >it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the >authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the >Guardianship or the Universal House of Justice, in important >areas of belief. What authority in areas of belief was conferred on the Universal House of Justice? I thought they were supposed to legislate, not dictate the beliefs of individuals. Was I wrong? >Indeed, some of his statements >give the impression that he does not accept Baha'u'llah's many >statements about the nature of the authority of a Manifestation >of God. Why didn't they ask him whether he accepted these statements? > Efforts to help Michael in overcoming his misunderstanding of >these Baha'i teachings were entirely without avail. Note the word "misunderstanding". Clearly Michael read the same words and understood them differently. In the absence of a Guardian, who is to say who is right? Who has the authority to impose a specific understanding of the Teachings upon an individual? >The Universal House of Justice provided >him with guidance from the Writings which should have corrected a >number of his misconceptions, including for this purpose a >memorandum specially prepared by the Baha'i World Centre's >Research Department on an issue central to his expressed concerns. >A knowledgeable believer selected for the purpose did her best to >assist him, through hours of discussion and a patient exchange of >correspondence on these and other issues. Michael's subsequent >statements made it clear that his views remained entirely >unaffected by these efforts. Apparently the members of the UHJ didn't change their views, either. This looks like a great opportunity to apply some principles of Baha'i consultation, if not academic discourse. > Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's >confusion would have remained his personal spiritual problem. That is insulting, even worse than the word "misconception" above. Michael was not confused. He had beliefs which differed from those of the members of the UHJ. Furthermore, the problem he was experiencing involved the well-being of a community, and World Peace; it was not a mere personal problem of one individual. >That it did not remain at this level >was the result solely of his deliberate decision to continue a >series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the >authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between >conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections >on the integrity and actions of those institutions. Michael did not challenge the authority of Baha'i institutions, as far as I know. He drew analogies between possible future paths of action of Baha'i institutions, and fascist governments. I'm afraid that these were read by many people in an emotional, rather than a rational, frame of mind. For many people, particularly perhaps those in Israel, feelings about fascist governments are so strong that the mere mention of such a government, in any way remotely connected with one side or another of an argument, immediately wins the argument, with no further discussion allowed. If, however, these were read in the spirit in which they were intended, as warnings that certain paths of action would lead to eventual disaster, is there anything in the Baha'i Writings that forbids the provision of such advice by Baha'i's to the UHJ? Or is there anything in the Writings that forbids the discussion among ordinary Baha'i's of possible future actions of the UHJ? How is the UHJ supposed to be guided in its actions without such discussion? (OK, OK, Divinely.) >As had been made clear during review with him by the advisor >mentioned above, of the relevant passages from the Will and >Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate contention is entirely >unacceptable in one who claims to believe in Baha'u'llah. Made clear to whom? How do they know what was made clear to Michael? Since there are differences in understanding of many things, it is quite likely that there was a difference here too. The warning should have been provided in writing. >Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a question about >the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving in this >fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice >reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic >implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do >so. I don't understand them either. Are they written down anywhere? (Other than in the hundreds of books of the Writings, most of which most Baha'i's have not read all of?) This seems to be an allusion to Covenant-Breakers and to be some sort of veiled threat, though whether against Michael or against others I'm not sure. >His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read >by most dispassionate observers as confirming the accuracy of this >assessment. I suppose they mean that because he became a Pagan, he must not have been serious about being a Baha'i in the first place. This is untrue and unfounded. Michael speaks for himself. He became a Pagan because it seemed better than being a Baha'i heretic, something which is not supposed to exist at all and the existence of which is an embarassment to the Baha'i faith. Perhaps it is those who created the position of Baha'i heretic who don't understand the basic implications of Baha'i membership. > Your concern for your husband's well-being is understandable >and does you much credit. That would be a very nice thing to say ... if it were said by anyone else! But here it is being said by the very people who are persecuting him. >Michael is not a victim of persecution. You said it! This sounds like one of those statements that just by the fact that it needs to be said, suggests that it's probably false. Like "This is not pyramid sales" or "Doing this doesn't break any of our campaign promises." I didn't say anything about persecution. I pointed out injustice. >Whatever notoriety >may have become associated with his situation is, like the >withdrawal of his membership, entirely the result of his own >actions. It is also entirely the result of the actions of the UHJ. >The House of Justice feels >that you can best assist him by encouraging him to set aside the >question of his former involvement in the Baha'i community and >devote his energies to the other religious and humanitarian >interests which engage his attention. I don't want any advice from them about how to assist Michael. Would they want advice from me about how to run the Baha'i religion? I think what they really mean is that what they suggest is the best way to assist the UHJ, not to assist Michael. This is somewhat insulting, actually: like "just forget about us hurting you". They didn't address the injustices I mentioned in my letter. They did provide a little more information about why Michael was expelled; but they provided it in a letter to me, not to him directly as would have been proper. The information is still rather vague. Are Baha'i's to feel now that they must understand all the Writings in the same way the UHJ understands them, or be expelled? I don't think the basic requirements of Baha'i membership are listed anywhere. Perhaps they feel that the discussions they mention, in which they believe certain things were made clear, (though they admit failing to make other things clear) constituted the warning I said they should have provided. They haven't addressed at all the question of whether the expulsion is temporary or permanent. END -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:28 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr. Glaysher: While I must admit that your posts in the past had upset me very much (as I said to Chris: my cultural make up-- Italian-Argentinean-Californian-- has a hard time accepting insults to groups, especially, when they include my best friends), know that I too do not agree with some of the harsher responses to your thinking and do not agree, even slightly, with personal offenses of any kind. I am ashamed that we are all so little deepened in the teachings of our lovely Faith and apologize for my brothers and sisters. Sincerely, Roxana Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I'm concerned that this morning I find Bahai-Discuss is being > used for a campaign against me personally by someone > pretending to be me and posting from bahai@hotmail.com. > > I request that your committee officially denounce this > abusive activity clearly calculated to inflame passions against > my person and against talk.religion.bahai, before the proper > period of discussion has even begun. > > I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, > one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you > under separate posting. > > I await patiently your answer to my previous communication. > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Catherine woodgold[SMTP:woodgold@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 4:16 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Email list service Hi, Fred. I just found out that there's a service that lets people start up email lists for free. They put an ad at the bottom of each message, maximum 3 lines, just to pay for their Internet connection etc.; they claim to be non-profit. Anyway, you can email a human there at support@coollist.com, or see their web page at https://208.141.98.157. Hope this is useful. Did you see my correspondence with the UHJ? For freedom of speech, Cathy ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:53 PM Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Theo writes: > > IN the letter to Michael's wife, the House, again asserts that it > was not Michaels' views that it was concerned with, but his internet > postings. The ramifications of the internet, the power of the written > word, the influence of words, and the perceived status and knowledge > of some Baha'is seem to be of grave concern. There's a piece of this I don't "get" and maybe Ahang, who knows the 'ins and outs' of the World Centre better than I can help me out. Ahang has suggested (and I think he is right) that obedience has always been key in Covenental issues. And the House's letter to Michael's wife certainly suggests that it is behviour and not belief which the House is primarily concerned with. Yet when Counselors and Auxiliar Board Members come out to talk to people whose activities on the internet disturb them, they don't talk about behaviour, they talk about beliefs and in some cases the conversations have resembled an interrogation of their beliefs. But no one ever tells these guys specifically and directly what they expect them to do or not do. Michael, to my knowledge, was never actually told to stop posting these messages on the internet. True the Auxiliary Board Member did come out and try and show Michael why he was wrong. But I don't think she ever came out directly and told him to stop publicly raising questions regarding the infallibility of the House or to stop campaigning to allow women on the House of Justice. In fact when both Juan and I (from different perspectives, mind you) suggested that such behaviour would not be tolerated, Michael was insistent that he believed the House would allow for such "free speech." My guess is he believed that up until the very end, which is why he acted as he did. Now in the case of others who have received little "visits" from the Counselors, they were told in rather vaque terms not to do what they were doing. This is about as effective as telling a child to "be good." If they don't understand what you expect they are unlikely to comply. In the case of Dr. John Walbridge, he was sent a number of postings which Counselor Birkland found obejctionable. I've gone through those postings and aside from the infamous "Majnun" post, I'm not at all sure what is the problem with most of them, except they tend to reflect a regretable cynicism towards the Baha'i community as a whole. If I were John I would not have known *how* to obey. My question is, where the House expects absolute obedience and intends to take action where it is not forthcoming, why don't they give direct orders instead of vaque " guidance?" It may be that the House expects their "guidance" to be taken as a direct order. If so we are suffering from a severe breakdown in communication. Americans are not going to understand an order as an order unless it is given as one. My guess is that that none of these guys who have gotten themselves in trouble recently would have been so recalcitrant as to disobey an directive from the Universal House of Justice if it were given as an unambiquous order. Susan Maneck Berry College - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:49 PM To: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: saving face?/ Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 30 Sep 97 at 18:53, Susan Maneck wrote: > From: "Susan Maneck" > Date sent: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:53:13 EST > Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice > Copies to: talisman@umich.edu, bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us, irfan1@umich.edu > ... It may be that the > House expects their "guidance" to be taken as a direct order. If so > we are suffering from a severe breakdown in communication. Americans > are not going to understand an order as an order unless it is given > as one. Theo/ Susan, Fascinating analysis, many thanks. As I mentioned before, perhaps one can look at this in terms of multi- cultural communication. If so, then maybe the BWC is operating within a value system where "saving face" is much more important than westerners might be aware. Also, to be fair, in terms of any realpolitik is going on, and BWC *had* told people to shut-up, there would have been a massive protest since it would have been seen as "censorship", no? EP -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Dean Betts[SMTP:fdbetts@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:13 PM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca; irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Re: Analysis by UHJ letter's recipient In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Ms. Woodgold, There will not be another Guardian. In his absense, there must needs be a final authority. If this requires interpretation by the House, I, personally hope they have accepted that challenge. I certainly cannot imagine this function being performed by any other entity or individual, except the Universal House. It is perfectly obvious to me that this is, in fact, what has happened, to which I say Ya-Baha'u'l'Abha! Greetings, Dean Betts **************************************************************************** Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the Lord of all the worlds. - Baha'u'llah **************************************************************************** - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:08 AM To: Sandra Fotos Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Sandy writes: > It's pretty clear that the House does not expect public criticism of > its legitimacy, authority and infallibility by members of the Baha'i > Faith. And make no mistake, email is **public action,** not private > speech. As I've said on H-Bahai, the Western legal system is based > upon the written word. No matter how speech-like it may be, a letter is > a legal document and we often hear the phrase, "I want it in writing" > when legal proof is required of a spoken agreement. It seems to me that if there are going to be consequences for certain actions, Sandy, the Institutions should also "put it in writing." The fact of the matter is that the people they are dealing with aren't reading the Writings they same way the House is. Susan Maneck Berry College - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Michael Furst[SMTP:mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 11:15 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: At 06:53 PM 9/30/97 EST, Susan Maneck wrote: >My question is, where the House expects absolute obedience and >intends to take action where it is not forthcoming, why don't they >give direct orders instead of vaque " guidance?" It may be that the >House expects their "guidance" to be taken as a direct order. If so >we are suffering from a severe breakdown in communication. Americans >are not going to understand an order as an order unless it is given >as one. My guess is that that none of these guys who have gotten >themselves in trouble recently would have been so recalcitrant as to >disobey an directive from the Universal House of Justice if it were >given as an unambiquous order. My guess is that the House is looking as much for an "attitude of obedience" as it is action & behavior. The real transgression becomes, therefore, the "act" of questioning. When the House can document (as with a number of people including Juan, Michael, John, et al) that attitude, they have a problem. If the attitude is verbalized or (worse yet) is written & disseminated, they are likely to take action. I think the House would like to be able to excise a large group of people who seem to them to be intellectually & spiritually arrogant (meaning, in my view, that they think for themselves and want answers they can understand before doing thingsd; what the House wants is people who leap to obey and who's questions are a matter of clarification, not justification. It is one thing to say "I don't understand; I am confused." It is quite another thing to say "I think they don't understand; they are confused." Warm regards, Michael "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, its too dark to read." -Groucho Marx ================================================ Michael Furst, Ph.D. Mitsui Professor of Business School of International Business Management University of International Business & Economics Beijing, China ================================================ - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Stephen R. Friberg[SMTP:friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:44 AM To: Theo Cope Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Theo: Like you, I find there are interesting aspects to this discussion. A couple of things strike me: 1. The stance of the Baha'i Faith in regard to these issues has never been a mystery. Rather, it has always been one of the most commonly discussed topics in the Baha'i community and in teaching efforts as well. One of the strongest points to be made in teaching the Faith has always been its clear commitment to maintaining its unity and preventing its breakup into competing sects. This emphasis has always been accompanied by clear and simple descriptions of the institutional structure of the Faith, and the description of where authority abides. The binding nature of this on believers in Baha'u'llah as always been strongly emphasized, and almost always well understood. 2. The necessity that individual expression is not always to be unlimited is, independent of any Baha'i teachings, also widely understood. For example, H-Baha'i, following quite common practice, limits its membership list to those thought to have the necessary qualification for discussion on issues of scholarly importance. It also has editors whose (sometimes thankless) task is to eliminate messages not corresponding to certain standards. So, there is no lack of awareness, at least so far as practice goes, of the need for restrictions on individual expression. 3. Individual expression has always been an issue of considerable emotional impact in American society, and around it seem to have grown up a considerable number of myths, some of which seem impervious to reason. Religious freedom, especially in the evangelical traditions, has often been thought to mean the freedom to condemn this or that institutional body as being a tool of this or that instrumentality considered to not be on the side of the elect (i.e, he or she doing the condemning). There is a strong, long established tradition of condemnation of established religious authority in the states, and its roots are very deep into the soil of American religious consciousness. 4. In non-American cultures, there are often strongly different traditions and perspectives on these issues. As a result the topic of individual expression versus community strength is one of great import as the world shrinks into the next century. For example, I live in Japan, where the restructuring of society to allow more individual expression is underway and under debate. 5. Many of the most important intellectual issues of the day revolve around these and similar issues, for example, the nature of justice, the role of governmental and societal authority, the structuring of discourse so as to allow harmonious co-exist ence of different "life-worlds." 6. A central issue for the development of Baha'i communities is the topic of "Who owns the Baha'i community?". The standard answer among those disaffected is "they do." Who is "they?" "Well, they is them," and some group is named as them. Usually, "them" don't think that they own the community, even though they act like it often enough. Of course, this is sometimes projected onto the Universal House of Justice, often to the point where regardless of what it actually says, it won't be understood. Of central importance to the development of the Faith is the strengthening of its community life, which I think that these discussion abundantly highlight the importance of. .... I personally would say that the Faith has certain norms laid out clearly for all to see. Not drinking, for example. Sexual fidelity, too. It is also very clear to me that the Faith has always held to its unity as being of utmost importance, and so has considered attempts to discredit its institutions in public as a threat to that unity. So this is also a norm. I think that this emphasis on unity has been successful enough so that I can indeed speak of the "Faith" and its precepts. In contrast, evangelical religious identity has tended to emphasize the preacherly freedom of breaking away and starting over again with new notions as to the nature of divine truth. There is little thought given to the consequences of this, which is, for example, that every American town, except those where the population is predominantly Catholic, is broken up into independent non-communicating religious groups structured along class, national, color, or even sexual-preference lines. Of course, nobody has a chance to get to know or even speak to somebody slightly different than themselves. You might say that this is the "American" way! However, as those of us not in the states know full well, the Faith is a world religion, and we need to cast our net wider. Yours favorably, Steve Friberg P.S. I promise this is all I will say for a while on this subject. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 4:49 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Much saddened to read just now that you had withdrawn from the Faith a few months ago. Is this true, or just another rumour? NB: It does not change my attitude to TRB, so don't worry on that count if it is true. My best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 2:55 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Baha'i Discuss Cc: eprice@mailer.fsu.edu Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai At 07:30 AM 09/30/97 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, >one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you >under separate posting. >Frederick Glaysher Dear Frederick: Though you and I differ on the matter of the proposed newsgroup, I want to tell you I am very sorrowful that you have received such negative, and personally targeted, email. Though men of good will can differ on matters of policy (ie, such as the proposed forum) no one can justify sending hate mail, and _certainly_ not among Baha'is. I hope Baha'u'llah will strengthen you and guide you in this difficult time. I wish you only happiness and many years of fruitful service in the Cause. Sincerely yours, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Gavin E. Reed[SMTP:gavinreed@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 5:03 AM To: Maneck,Susan; (unknown) Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Susan Maneck wrote (in part): > My question is, where the House expects absolute obedience and > intends to take action where it is not forthcoming, why don't they > give direct orders instead of vaque " guidance?" It may be that the > House expects their "guidance" to be taken as a direct order. If so > we are suffering from a severe breakdown in communication. Americans > are not going to understand an order as an order unless it is given > as one. My guess is that that none of these guys who have gotten > themselves in trouble recently would have been so recalcitrant as to > disobey an directive from the Universal House of Justice if it were > given as an unambiquous order. In its lengthy letter of May 19, 1994 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, the House of Justice wrote at some length about what I would characterize as "institutional style", or leadership style. Here is a brief but (IMHO pertinent) exerpt: "In your openness and candor you will, no doubt, avoid ineptitudes that pass as norms in the freedom of speech practiced in your nation. In a society where "telling it like it is" employs a style of expression which robs language of its decorum, and in a time when stridency is commonly presumed to be a quality of leadership, candor is crass, and authority speaks in a loud and vulgar voice. People are frequently obliged to receive direction from their leaders in such disrespectful modes, this is a reason for resentment and suspicion toward those in authority. By contrast, Baha'i institutions have the task of accustoming the friends to recognizing the expression of authority in language at a moderate pitch." Now, I realize there is a difference between "disrespectful" and "direct", but perhaps the House, by adhering to principle in its communications with the believers, refrains from giving "direct orders", since, in a community of belief, "guidance" from an infallible source is the moral equivalent of an direct order, except that it allows the individual to retain the option of obeying or not (belief -- and behavior which is conditional upon belief -- is always an individual choice and never properly subject to coercion). The House's guidance, in my experience, is never ambiguous, even if it rarely (if ever, with respect to individuals) phrases its guidance as a direct order. The House's guidance embodies a deep respect for its recipients: "Some cases require that the Assembly take action that is firm or drastic. Even so, Assembly members have always to be mindful that the authority they wield must in general be expressed with love, humility and a genuine respect for others. Thus exercised, authority strikes a natural note and accords with that which is acceptable to spiritually attuned and fair-minded souls. The following guidance of Shoghi Effendi, as conveyed by his secretary, is especially relevant: 'The administrators of the Faith of God must be like unto shepherds. Their aim should be to dispel all the doubts, misunderstandings and harmful differences which may arise in the community of the believers. And this they can adequately achieve provided they are motivated by a true sense of love for their fellow-brethren coupled with firm determination to act with justice in all cases which are submitted to them for their consideration.'" (House's letter to US NSA 5/9/94) I think the Universal House of Justice practices what it preaches. If we accept the authority of the House of Justice, we willingly submit to its guidance, whether or not we feel we understand or intellectually appreciate it at the time. If we don't accept the authority of the House, and choose to ignore its guidance, we cannot properly consider ourselves Baha'i. This doesn't make us evil, but it also doesn't make us persecuted. And what does it say about the quality of our love if we require a direct order from our beloved before we're willing to return their warm embrace? Warm regards, Gavin Reed - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 7:30 AM To: Fran Baker Subject: Pretense > Even that seems to be >suspect. Why is there a pretense of *any* freedom of thought >or discourse?! I'm answering you via email because people keep advising me not to discuss freedom of conscience issue and so on now, and perhaps they're right.... I appreciate your broaching the subject though.... I've just been the target of an attack on bahai-discuss that result in two pieces of hate mail, one with personal threats against me. I wish I could say it's the first time. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 10:43 AM To: Theo Cope; Stephen R. Friberg Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Steve Friberg writes: > 3. Individual expression has always been an issue of considerable > emotional impact in American society, and around it seem to have > grown up a considerable number of myths, some of which seem > impervious to reason. Religious freedom, especially in the > evangelical traditions, has often been thought to mean the > freedom to condemn this or that institutional body as being > a tool of this or that instrumentality considered to not be > on the side of the elect (i.e, he or she doing the condemning). Dear Steve, I am utterly baffled as to why you would associate such attitudes to Evangelical Christianity and American culture. Is it not this very conflict which gave rise to all of the "revealed" religions? Is this not the story of the crucifixtion of Christ Himself, the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn? Is this not what is depicted in the Kitab-i Iqan? Or even beyond that, is this not the theme of virtually every Greek tragedy? Last year in a recent letter to Academe a professor defended the principle of academic freedom in the following terms: " One of the miracles of human nature is a constant struggle for integrity, even at the cost of pain and loneliness. Human beings everywhere long for the chance to say what is in their hearts and minds. "Academic freedom" is only the name we in the teaching profession give to that struggle against the coercive lie. I am surprised that we need to rationalize something that is so urgent and fundamental to any self-respecting human being. Have we learned nothing in a whole century of coercive experiments? The fact that we need to rationalize academic freedom, to picture it as something new, is indicative of how far we have lost our way. If you seek a definition of free speech and thought. open up any book of any honest canon, ancient or modern, and you will see it expressed with the greatest clarity and force, with no struggle for definition, straight from the human heart." Don't misunderstand me. I am not faulting the Institutions for their actions. They too have a responsibility to preserve their identity and integrity which involves the identity and integrity of the Baha'i Faith as a whole. But the tension between individual and institutional integrity will always be there. We have to find ways to provide for both. This is a struggle as old as humankind. It will likely always be there. Susan Maneck Berry College - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 1:48 PM To: Gavin E. Reed; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Gavin, I agree with you that your letter represents the attitude which the House would have us take towards "guidance" from the Institutions. And as a general rule this may be the best way for the Institutions to address believers. But I wonder if this is appropriate in those cases where continued misbehaviour is going to bring on definite consequences, as in Micheal's case? Attitudes, as someone else noted are going to be intimately tied to beliefs and if I understand the letter to Michael's wife, the House seems to be saying it is content to allow personal belief to remain a matter of individual conscience, so long as it doesn't find expression in certain types of behaviour. If it is behaviour, not beliefs or attitudes which will bring on administrative sanctions, ought not the exact nature unacceptable behaviour be made undisputably clear before the person is made to suffer the consequences of disobedience? Susan Maneck Berry College Gavin wrote: > If we accept the authority of the House of Justice, we willingly submit to > its guidance, whether or not we feel we understand or intellectually > appreciate it at the time. If we don't accept the authority of the House, > and choose to ignore its guidance, we cannot properly consider ourselves > Baha'i. This doesn't make us evil, but it also doesn't make us persecuted. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:59 PM To: 'SManeck@berry.edu' Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Susan and Friends, Given Irfan's policy against blind posts by non-members, I've removed its address, and that of H-Bahai, from the delivery lines of this message. However, members of those lists are free to forward these remarks to the respective lists if they so choose. > From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] > Don't misunderstand me. I am not faulting the Institutions for their > actions. They too have a responsibility to preserve their identity > and integrity which involves the identity and integrity of the > Baha'i Faith as a whole. But the tension between individual and > institutional integrity will always be there. We have to find ways to > provide for both. This is a struggle as old as humankind. It will > likely always be there. > Two thoughts. First, the Universal House of Justice is an institution unique in human history, as is the relationship that Baha'is have with it. For no other institution do we have the assurance that it is "freed from all error" by One who was Himself freed from error when He gave us that assurance. Yes, the Universal House of Justice can make decisions based upon incomplete our faulty information, and, whenever such a case arises, we are duty-bound to provide whatever information we have. But the tension that has existed between a number of academics and the Universal House of Justice has been over more than just matters of fact. Not being simply content to inform the Universal House of Justice of what they regard as important facts, a number of academics have expected that their information would alter certain decisions that the Universal House of Justice has made. When one's disagreement with the Universal House of Justice moves beyond mere fact, when it involves an interpretation of what those facts mean, one is, in essence, placing one's own understanding of the applicable principles ahead of that of the Universal House of Justice. Which brings me to the second point. Individual integrity cannot exist without an appropriate degree of intellectual honesty and humility with regard to one's own limitations. The moment I decide that I understand Baha'u'llah's Revelation better than `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, no matter how well trained I might be in religious studies, my behavior has moved outside the realm of individual integrity and into the realm of individual arrogance. `Abdu'l-Baha's understanding of Baha'u'llah's Revelation was nurtured by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. Shoghi Effendi's understanding was nutured, from his birth, by none other than `Abdu'l-Baha Himself. It is simply not possible for any of us to match either the training `Abdu'l-Baha had or the training Shoghi Effendi had. When one understands the process that the Universal House of Justice uses to arrive at a decision, one also understands that to oppose the Univesal House of Justice's application of principle to some agreed-upon set of facts is as outside the realm of individual integrity as is a belief that one understands the Revelation of Baha'u'llah better than `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. No decision is made without careful consideration of all the relevant guidance from `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. No decision is made without full and frank consultation on the matter. How can the independant understanding of one or two individuals, on any issue, compare to the collective understanding, arrived at via the fullest possible expression of the consultative process, of the Universal House of Justice? Thus, if we are to maintain the fullest expression of our indivual integrity, the voicing of our views, when these views differ from those of the institutions, must take on a character that incorporates this acceptance of our own limitations. This is a new level of maturity from that which is found in most academic circles where the voicing of disagreement has taken on much of the same brutal and strident tone found in American political discourse. Such tone--a tone that implies that the soloist is right and the rest of the band is wrong--is discordant, and out of harmony. Should we repeatedly insist on playing such sour notes, why would we be surprised if the Band Leader tells us to take our instruments and go play somewhere else? Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:43 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: rumors In message <19971001110614.3261.qmail@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Rumors of my demise are much exaggerated.... I can't say the thought >hasn't occurred to me these past months, but, no, only a passing >weakness.... Was that posted on bd too? Yes. I thought it looked a bit fishy. I will post a response. Best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 5:45 PM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: (Fwd) Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Please excuse this blind post. I thought some of you might be interested in seeing this response to my question made by Dr. Ahang Rabbani. Susan ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:43:04 EST Reply-to: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu From: Susan Maneck Organization: Berry College Subject: Message to the Universal House of Justice To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice From: rabbani@juno.com (Ahang Rabbani) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:24:01 EDT Susan jan, I think your analysis extremely cogent. As a small footnote I would only add that should the House of Justice come right out and issue an order to someone, should that person, for whatever reason, decide not to obey the House, that person then *is* in conflict with the Covenant, and the House would be forced to either look the other way, or to declare that person a CBer. Should it decide to look the other way, then its own authority is permanently undermined. And should it declare the person a CBer, then soon the whole planet is populated with CBers. So, I think the House has very wisely allowed Counselors and ABMs to counsel folks. Remember, CBCs and ABMs are *not* authorized to tell anyone what to do, and only serve to advise Assemblies and believers, but its only an advise, a counsel. The hope, as I understand the situation, is that through this advise the person will reflect and amend their ways. So, the Counselors cannot tell a certain individual that you're causing conflict in cyberspace and we want you to get off email for awhile, or that you are upsetting folks in the Feast, and we want you to cool it, etc, etc. But what a member of the Appointed Branch can do is to show some of the things that a person has done which may have caused contention. The rest is up the person. I say that because of what the House wrote to Steve Scholl: This is the Day of Judgement. Some will choose wisely, others will not. So when Counsellor Birkland met with some of the friends over Talisman situation, all he could do was to show them some of their postings and counsel them as to why they caused contention. Now how well he did his job and how effective he was, etc, is left to be judged. But the point that I wanted to make is that in not "ordering" these friends, the House actually spared them the possibility of direct conflict with the Covenant. ahang. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 5:47 PM To: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:22:46 -0500 (EST) From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Susan Maneck wrote: > My question regarding the House 'offering guidance' rather than > giving orders was addressed by a member of the Baha'i Studies list. > but perhaps the House, by adhering to principle in its communications with > the believers, refrains from giving "direct orders", since, in a community > of belief, "guidance" from an infallible source is the moral equivalent of > an direct order, except that it allows the individual to retain the option > of obeying or not (belief -- and behavior which is conditional upon belief > -- is always an individual choice and never properly subject to coercion). I think this is a highly problematic idea as Shoghi Effendi stated specifically that when he gave advice that was exactly what it was and individuals were free to follow it or not as they chose; one was only obliged to do what he said if he made it a direct instruction on the basis that it was necessary to do such and such for the good of the faith. The description above does not in real terms give the recipient of 'advice' the option of taking the advice or not, but the option of taking the advice and being a faithful Baha'i or not taking the advice and not being a faithful Baha'i whether that is operationalized in a moral or administratively literal sense. R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 6:28 PM To: Bahai Discuss Subject: Mr. Roger Reini: a sincere and heartfelt thanks.... Mr. Reini: I have felt sincere and heartfelt gratitude for your generous words, defense, and support on Bahai-Discuss. I'm indebted to both you and Chris Manvell.... It seems to me the least I can do is say so publicly.... I remember a poet's words, "All else fades." Thank you. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Burl Barer[SMTP:burlb@bmi.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 2:27 AM To: Daniel Lord Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: (Fwd) Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: > Furthermore, in my view, if the responsible Institution feels >that a person does not accept "the authority and sovereignty of Baha'u'llah" >by his challenging the authority of the Guardian or the Universal House >of Justice -- despite statements he may make asserting his allegiance >to Baha'u'llah, then it is nothing short of a logical response of the >Institution to regard him as a non-Baha'i and to withdraw his membership >accordingly. Thank you Daniel, you said that so well. BB - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 11:26 AM To: Rick Schaut Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: To my comment: > > Don't misunderstand me. I am not faulting the Institutions for their > > actions. They too have a responsibility to preserve their identity > > and integrity which involves the identity and integrity of the > > Baha'i Faith as a whole. But the tension between individual and > > institutional integrity will always be there. We have to find ways to > > provide for both. This is a struggle as old as humankind. It will > > likely always be there. Rick writes: > Which brings me to the second point. Individual integrity cannot exist > without an appropriate degree of intellectual honesty and humility with > regard to one's own limitations. The moment I decide that I understand > Baha'u'llah's Revelation better than `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, no > matter how well trained I might be in religious studies, my behavior has > moved outside the realm of individual integrity and into the realm of > individual arrogance. Would that it were this simple! The dilemma which always faces the Baha'i academic scholar is whether to give priority to authority over the evidence. To give priority to authority may well make a person a better Baha'i, but in the process one sacrifices one's integrity as an academic scholar. Susan Maneck Berry College - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 2:00 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; Rick Schaut Cc: Talisman; Baha'i Studies List Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Rick wrote: >> Which brings me to the second point. Individual integrity cannot exist >> without an appropriate degree of intellectual honesty and humility with >> regard to one's own limitations. The moment I decide that I understand >> Baha'u'llah's Revelation better than `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, no >> matter how well trained I might be in religious studies, my behavior has >> moved outside the realm of individual integrity and into the realm of >> individual arrogance. Susan replied: > >Would that it were this simple! The dilemma which always faces the >Baha'i academic scholar is whether to give priority to authority over >the evidence. To give priority to authority may well make a person a >better Baha'i, but in the process one sacrifices one's integrity as >an academic scholar. IMV, the purpose of life is not to exercise individual integrity as you apparently define it. IMV you express a rather romantic notion of personal integrity (within a Baha'i context) and this, IMV, is where Juan, Steve, and Michael ran into problems--supposedly being heroic over matters that could have been wisely settled with patience and humility. The ingredients were right but the proportions were wrong. To much of this not enough of that. Every day of my life I experience things I feel have a bearing on my integrity, and I have a choice of deescalating them wisely with due humility or sticking to my guns. I have come to the conclusion that true personal integrity consists in putting positive energy into the mix and not being concerned with imperfect people or authority. IMV One has to be able to see themselves as a part of something vastly greater than themselves that one is organically a member of. Proportionality, moderation, and wisdom are the key to such a personal balance. Romanticism places an ultimate emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination-- a narcissistic preoccupation (self-admiration). Personal integrity, as you have expressed it, has a similar ring to the idea of personal honor--something that cannot be offended. Yet, being an academic scholar does not make one an arbiter of reality, or the truth. One merely expresses a point of view. Some are better than others in a relative sense. We believe in our work, but we also recognize the puniness of our efforts in the vast totality of knowledge. If one makes their disagreements with Baha'i authority (as in the cases above) an occasion for a duel of one's integrity what is really accomplished? People romantically imagine they have stuck to their guns and did the right thing but being right about some detail or policy in the abstact--what does that prove? Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 2:33 PM To: 'SManeck@berry.edu' Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Susan and Friends, > From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] > > Which brings me to the second point. Individual integrity cannot > exist > > without an appropriate degree of intellectual honesty and humility > with > > regard to one's own limitations. > > Would that it were this simple! The dilemma which always faces the > Baha'i academic scholar is whether to give priority to authority over > the evidence. To give priority to authority may well make a person a > better Baha'i, but in the process one sacrifices one's integrity as > an academic scholar. > Are we talking about the same thing? I don't recall a single instance where the Universal House of Justice has been upset with any academic's pure observations, do you? If there's any instance where the Universal Hosue of Justice has disagreed with any academic over _data_, I'd certainly like to know about it. I think the disagreement is with respect to what the evidence means--i.e. interpretation. Indeed, the flap on Talisman 1 and Michael's excommunication all have one thing in common: individuals attempting to define Baha'i belief and practice (i.e. the ability of women to serve on the Universal House of Justice) by approaching the basic meaning of Baha'u'llah's writings not through the lens of authoritative interpretation but through the lens of individual interpretation animated by the fundamental assumptions and methods of western academia. With this behavior, there is no integrity if one wishes to call oneself "Baha'i". Scholl, Cole and others chose to acknowledge that they no longer believe that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today. Michael wouldn't make that acknowledgement, so the Universal House of Justice did it for him. I will point out that, even with Michael's latest missive, he still hasn't come out and stated that he ever believe Baha'u'llah to be the Manifestation of God for today. Indeed, Michael's stated reason for enrolling in the Baha'i Faith, that he believed the Baha'i Faith has the capacity to bring about world peace, is not dependant any belief in Baha'u'llah's station. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 5:12 PM To: Rick Schaut; Richard C. Logan Cc: Talisman; Baha'i Studies List Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: To my statement: > > > >Would that it were this simple! The dilemma which always faces the > >Baha'i academic scholar is whether to give priority to authority over > >the evidence. To give priority to authority may well make a person a > >better Baha'i, but in the process one sacrifices one's integrity as > >an academic scholar. > Richard writes: IMV you express a rather romantic notion of > personal integrity (within a Baha'i context) and this, IMV, is where > Juan, Steve, and Michael ran into problems--supposedly being heroic over > matters that could have been wisely settled with patience and humility. > The ingredients were right but the proportions were wrong. To much of > this not enough of that. But Richard, I said nothing at all about what the proportions ought to be and I affirmed the importantce of the Institutions maintaining their integrity as well. Why do you assume my "mixture" is wrong? I don't doubt for a minute that things might have been resolved more amicably had there been more patience and humility on all sides. Susan Maneck Berry College - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 4:47 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; Rick Schaut Cc: Talisman; Baha'i Studies List Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: >But Richard, I said nothing at all about what the proportions ought >to be and I affirmed the importantce of the Institutions maintaining >their integrity as well. Why do you assume my "mixture" is wrong? I >don't doubt for a minute that things might have been resolved more >amicably had there been more patience and humility on all sides. Well, I suppose I must not be understanding you. What we mean and what we say--conotation/denotion are often at odds. Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Guy Macon[SMTP:guymacon@deltanet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:15 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... I read your message then deleted it in a way that does not allow undeletions, and will never speak of it. I realize that you believe that you had good reasons for crossposting. I do not agree that those reasons justified the crossposting. If your proposal wins, you will be faced with one person after another who believes that crossposting to trb is justified, and *you* will be argueing that trb is for bahais, not for someone with a totally unrelated conflict to use you to gain an advantage over their opponents. Posts about censorship of bahais do not belong in newsgroups that are dedicated to other subjects. ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:32 AM To: SManeck@berry.edu; richs@microsoft.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: In a message dated 97-10-03 10:22:21 EDT, smaneck@berry.edu writes: << The question which has yet to be adequately addressed is if, as I have suggested, authoritative interpretations consists of Writings applying the Writings to the present situation, what happens when there is no longer a living Interpreter? >> Fortunately or unfortunately, this is not for us to decide. Will interpretation of some sort continue? Well of course. We can't make our way to the bathroom in the morning without interpreting. But we are going to have to be content that the UHJ will be the ones to slowly, (and far to slowly for many) scout the way down this uncharted trail. It will not be some panel of academics, no matter their qualifications. If we have little to fear of such a panel, we might review the acrimony and confusion that has reined with the whole Q project and the authenticated sayings of Jesus. Susan I am sure you are familiar with this. Though we would not have argument concerning the authenticity of the Text, we would have arguments ad invinitum over what Baha'u'llah REALLY meant by the word ******; "...did He say it while he was looking East, because in certain Sufi traditions, uttering such a word while facing East on such and such a day....." In some ways this all smacks of a Baha'i version of deconstruction - with a twist of Authority thrown in. The Authority does rest with the House and we will have to be patient. If this is truly a new world order it will open in its own good time and in its own good way. That's a tough cookie, I agree but that's it. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:42 AM To: Michael Furst; M. Ranjbar Cc: Baha'i Studies List; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: >If I understand what you're saying here, its okay to have a different >opinion, one just can not discuss it with others. I see your point on a theoretical level, but lets face it, not all things are best discussed in public. You don't seem to be able to concede this admission. Speech has a definate toxic component, and can't simply be dumped down stream. We are in an interdependent environment and the days of careless disposal of thought made manifest through speech is surely comeing to a close. Care and restraint need to be shown, and a deep respect for the consequences of public speech. Sometimes it seems people just don't seem to reguard the seriousness of what they say. Speech is action. I predict in the future people will regaurd speech with the same seriousness with which they regaurd any other agressive and poluting behavior. A new world order is not a theoretical problem, it is a real problem involving real people. I have been trying to understand the basis for your negative feelings and it seems as if you let what certain individuals say inform your entire perspective, and insist that this is the de facto Baha'i status. I believe this process transcends the twists and turns of community development. Baha'u'llah asks us to see the end in the beginnning. I don't know if I'm getting through to you, but what I'm trying to communicate is not mere platitudes or pious pronouncements, but what I believe to be the real assessments of necessary social change. Baha'u'llah asks us to turn away from the the imperfect world of humanity that surely disappoints and set our gaze on the Blessed Beauty. Otherwise no positive advance is possible for us. Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:53 AM To: SManeck@berry.edu; richs@microsoft.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: In a message dated 97-10-04 10:46:26 EDT, smaneck@berry.edu writes: << I don't think you are quite correct here. It is the scholars who will do the *scouting* in the sense that it is they who do the nitty gritty research on the subject. It is the House of Justice who will decide how to *utilize* the fruits of their research and how it will be applied, particularly in terms of Baha'i Law. If we keep those functions separate, I think we will have much fewer problems. IMV the biggest problem with the *Service of Women* paper is that it was programmatic, it tried to push for a certain plan of action to be based on the research. This should have been left for the Rulers to decide. >> Just so. And you are right. It is the Universal House of Justice that is responsible for charting the course of a new world order... >>>I have great admiration for the Jesus Project. If it has not brought forth much fruits it is because the paucity of their sources. But I think their methods are sound. >>> But the amount of *mud* that has been stirred up is amazing. And in the end it seems that they have lost the ability to see the wider field...too often historians (and other of my brothers and sisters in the liberal arts) behave too much like our family in the sciences... very good at analyzing, at pulling apart. But when asked what this *all* means they are still at a loss to say. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:55 AM To: 'Michael Furst' Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Mike and Friends, Since I'm not on irfan, I've removed that list from the distribution of this message. However, anyone who is a member of Irfan is free to forward my remarks to that list. I've said a few things about basic assumptions and their consonance with the assumptions of one's declared belief in Baha'u'llah. Before I get to discussing Michael Furst's remarks, I'd like to address what appears to be an assumption shared by some folks who are trying to understand the message written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice regarding Michael McKenny's membership in the Baha'i Faith. People seem to be assuming that the Universal House of Justice intended this to be some form of punishment directed at Michael. It's an assumption that I, as a Baha'i, cannot share because it requires me to believe that the Universal House of Justice, for some inexplicable reason, acted contrary to some very basic principles of the Faith. In the Baha'i Faith, the concepts of punishment and the application of any form of sanction by an administrative institution are orthogonal to each other. We are souls that exist in this physical world for the purpose of preparing ourselves for the next world of existence. The ultimate consequence of our actions is the extent to which we are prepared to function in that world. Our "punishment", then, is a matter left entirely to God. The purpose of sanctions applied by administrative institutions, then, is two-fold: 1) to aid the individual to rectify his or her conduct and 2) to uphold standards. The first purpose is animated by what I mentioned in the paragraph above. The Universal House of Justice is concerned about an individual's progress in this process of preparation for the next world. The second purpose is protection of the Cause itself. To allow standards to be lax is to turn the Baha'i Faith into an empty shell. Much of this has been documented in Shoghi Effendi's letters on Baha'i Administration, and there is a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated December 9, 1991, that discusses these issues at length. > From: Michael Furst [SMTP:mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn] > At 02:31 PM 10/3/97 -0500, M. Ranjbar wrote: > > I think the real problem has little to do with questioning. Any > Baha'i > >who can read or write can readily send questions to the House. The > problem > >as I have observed on former lists and apparently this one as well, > is when > >individuals decide not only to differ in opinion with the House, but > then > >proceed to build coalition [in a political manner on semi-exclusive > >lists] against the House of justice in order to pressure the House > into > >altering it's answer to any given question. > > If I understand what you're saying here, its okay to have a different > opinion, one just can not discuss it with others. > It's not that one cannot discuss these matters or ask these questions openly. The issue is whether or not one's questions and the manner in which one asks one's questions, reveal some assumptions that are not consonant with one's stated belief that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today. Let's suppose that a particular individual has engaged in a public discussion of some issue, and in the process has shown that they are viewing this issue through a set of assumptions that are not consonant with a stated belief in Baha'u'llah. What can we expect the Universal House of Justice to do in light of the above stated principles? The answer to that will depend upon what the Universal House of Justice knows about that individual. One might simply be unaware of the full implications of one's stated belief in Baha'u'llah, and, in such a case, the efforts of a Continental Counsellor or a member of the Auxiliary Board should suffice to deepen that individual in these implications. If deepening is all that is necessary, then the individual's behavior will change, and the assumptions from which they operate will be more in concert with his or her stated belief in Baha'u'llah. Suppose, however, that these efforts to educate this individual have failed to bring about the expected change in behavior. At this point, there are really only two possibilities: either the individual really believes that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today, in which case the matter is a Covenantal issue, or the individual doesn't really believe that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today, in which case the matter is an issue of membership. In either case, the primary concern of the Universal House of Justice is upholding the standards of the Faith. Even if someone is declared a Covenant breaker, the Universal House of Justice is not purposed to handing out some form of punishment. This should be abundantly clear in the fact that individuals who have been declared Covenant breakers have been reinstated as Baha'is following sincere repentance over their conduct. That door is always open, and has always been open. I believe a careful review of what happened in Michael McKenny's case will bear out the analysis above. Michael has not been silenced within the Baha'i community. He is free to state his views and we are free to associate with him as we please. The only thing that has happened is that the Universal House of Justice won't allow Michael to even nominally associate himself with the Baha'i Faith--a stance which the Universal House of Justice has every right to take. I hope it is now clear that, if we are at all concerned about the status of our membership in the Baha'i Faith, then it's incumbent upon us to very carefully examine our basic assumptions in light of our declared belief in Baha'u'llah. This is, I believe, the sole standard by which one might be deem oneself to be a "thinking" person (note that by this standard, it's impossible to decide whether or not someone else is a "thinking" person). One has to be equally willing to search within one's heart, to question oneself as much as one questions the answers given by the Institutions of our Faith. And if, in the process of carrying out this examination of self, we find that we are unable to relinquish some assumptions that are not consonant with our stated belief in Baha'u'llah, we are bound by the standards of individual integrity to renounce our belief in Baha'u'llah. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:45 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Background to letter to House Here is the background file I sent along with my letter to the House. It reflects my understanding of the situation. Note that I've snipped the "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" from the file. Apologies if this is too long (7K) -- Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) -------------- BACKGROUND NOTE: The following information reflects my understanding of the situation. In a moderated newsgroup, an individual or team receives all submissions to the newsgroup and posts them only if they meet the charter of the newsgroup. Posts which do not meet the charter are returned to the poster. In an unmoderated newsgroup, posts are immediately posted to the group. There are currently two Usenet newsgroups devoted to the Faith: the moderated soc.religion.bahai (s.r.b) and the unmoderated alt.religion.bahai (a.r.b). s.r.b was created in 1992, while a.r.b was created in early 1997 (by a non-Baha'i, by the way) as a reaction to the defeat of the first talk.religion.bahai (t.r.b) proposal. This defeat (approx. 150 votes in favor, approx. 700 opposed) was overwhelming by Usenet voting standards. After a proposal is defeated, it may not be voted upon again for at least 6 months. That time period has elapsed, so t.r.b is being proposed again. USENET VOTING PROCESS The voting process for so-called "Big 8" newsgroups (newsgroups falling into the original eight hierarchies -- comp.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*, etc.) recommends that one vote Yes or No only for certain reasons. I now include a Usenet message which describes those reasons: [Joe Bernstein post on reasons for voting snipped for space] According to my understanding of these guidelines, "the existence of talk.religion.bahai would be harmful to the image of the Baha'i Faith" is not an acceptable reason for voting No. It may be counter-intuitive, but it appears to be true. Nonetheless, many of the votes against the first t.r.b proposal were, no doubt, for this reason. In my opinion, when we Baha'is participate in a newsgroup vote, we should follow the letter and spirit of the regulations under which the vote is conducted, for our participation does not require us to deny our Faith. At the same time, these guidelines cannot be enforced in the voting process. Therefore, anybody can cast a vote for any reason. The voting system is on the verge on breaking down, and actually has broken down in several instances. Several newsgroup proposals (none of which were related to the Faith) have been defeated for reasons unrelated to the technical merits of the proposals. Much of the self-governing process of Usenet is in conflict with the Baha'i teachings on consensus and consultation. Indeed, one can say that Usenet, and many of its administrators, is very libertarian in nature. Thus, differences are bound to occur. To take an example: according to the Usenet voting process, individuals who do not have Usenet access or who do not use Usenet should not be voting on newsgroup proposals. At the same time, the friends may feel that they have a right to vote on any action on the Net which deals with the Faith in some way, even if they do not use Usenet. How can the conflict be resolved? I do not doubt the sincerity of the friends who want to defeat t.r.b because they feel it would be harmful to the image of the Faith. At the same time, I believe that a massive No vote against the proposal would end up harming the image of the Faith in the eyes of the Usenet policy makers. Perhaps the best thing would be for the t.r.b proposal to be withdrawn for now. However, the proponent may not be willing to do this. OBJECTIONS TO UNMODERATED NEWSGROUPS ABOUT THE FAITH These are the reasons commonly cited why unmoderated newsgroups about the Faith should not be created: 1. They provide a forum for Covenant breakers and other enemies of the Faith. 2. They would be overrun with irrelevant crossposts and discussions from other newsgroups and with excessive commercial postings, including pornographic messages. 3. There is insufficient newsgroup traffic to justify a new group. 4. Discussions on unmoderated newsgroups would degenerate into petty bickering and nonconstructive argument, which is clearly contrary to the Baha'i teachings. 5. Any newsgroup with the name "*.bahai" would be assumed to be endorsed by the Faith The moderated Baha'i newsgroup soc.religion.bahai does not allow posts from Covenant breakers, nor does it accept off-topic postings. The example of alt.religion.bahai (a.r.b) is used as an example to illustrate what t.r.b would be like. I would like to discuss each issue separately. There is insufficient newsgroup traffic to justify a new group. This is a valid reason for objecting to the t.r.b proposal, according to the Usenet voting guidelines. So I will not discuss it further. They would be overrun with irrelevant crossposts and discussions from other newsgroups and with excessive commercial postings, including pornographic messages. This is a risk of any unmoderated newsgroup these days. Such postings are indeed deplorable. However, the Usenet policy makers are constantly fighting against such net-abuse. If one were to oppose a group on these grounds, then one should oppose all unmoderated groups for the same reasons. Discussions on unmoderated newsgroups would degenerate into petty bickering and nonconstructive argument, which is clearly contrary to the Baha'i teachings. This is a risk, but it does not have to be the case. One can self-moderate the discussion, and if things are getting out of hand, one can simply disengage from the discussion. They provide a forum for Covenant breakers and other enemies of the Faith. Since the groups would be unmoderated, there would be no way to stop such posts from appearing. However, CB's and enemies would be able to post to other newsgroups. Indeed, they have this capability now. On a.r.b, CB's have posted. However, with very few exceptions, no one has replied to their messages or engaged them in debate. The charges of the enemies have been refuted, and they have mostly disappeared. Any newsgroup with the name "*.bahai" would be assumed to be endorsed by the Faith. For instance, many people believe that soc.religion.bahai is sponsored by the Baha'i Communication and Computing Association (BCCA). In fact, this is not the case. It has been suggested that the proponent of talk.religion.bahai add a statement to the newsgroup charter that this newsgroup is not sponsored or endorsed in any way by any Institution of the Faith. Prepared by Roger Reini (rreini@wwnet.com) Oct. 6, 1997 ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:40 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Copy of letter to Universal House of Justice FYI -- here is the letter that I am sending electronically to the House. I ask that it not be posted to any newsgroups. ---------- October 6, 1997 To the Universal House of Justice and its honorable members I greet you in the spirit of loving-kindness and fellowship. There is an issue currently facing the online Baha'i community, an issue which may call for the guidance of the House. You have probably heard about a proposal earlier this year to create an unmoderated newsgroup (a public discussion group on the Internet) called talk.religion.bahai. The proposal was soundly defeated, but now, after the required six-month waiting period has ended, it is being proposed again (or it soon will be). This subject is a very controversial one in the Baha'i community. Many of the friends who participate in the Bahai-Discuss mailing list believe that this proposal should be defeated again, as it was before, because its existence would harm the good name of the Faith. Others (myself included) have pointed out that such a reason is not a proper reason for voting against a newsgroup proposal, according to the standards for creating so-called "Big 8" newsgroups. I'll provide more background on this at the bottom of this letter. This discussion raises the following questions: How should we Baha'is conduct ourselves in public newsgroups? Should we participate in discussions about the Faith in public, unmoderated newsgroups? Should we create public, unmoderated newsgroups devoted to the Faith? How should we respond to opposition to the Faith in public newsgroups? I am aware of the guidance the friends have received in the past about conducting ourselves in general, and I know that the House has generated at least two communications dealing with e-mail discussions among the friends. But I know of no specific guidance regarding public newsgroups, and it is possible that the existing guidance may not be fully applicable to them. I humbly beseech the House to consider these questions and provide us with the guidance it deems appropriate. With loving Baha'i greetings, Roger Reini (rreini@wwnet.com) Westland, Michigan, USA US Baha'i ID 0167170 ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 2:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Copy of letter to Universal House of Justice John Bromberek wrote: [snips for space] > In fact, I would go so far as to say that and CFV should probably not be > posted to any of the Baha'i discussion lists with the possible exception of > bahai-faith - being as that list is just an extension of the s.r.b > newsgroup. If a person does not use the newsgoups and would not come > across the CFV in the normal course of reading, then the matter is not one > that concerns them. [Hey, it's just an opinion.] That is a reasonable request. However, since I'm not the proponent, I have no control over where it's posted. > Anyway, I think that you may have answered your own question in asking > it. You state (as quoted above) that the "proposal was soundly defeated", > and that "This subject is a very controversial one in the Baha'i community..." This appears to be what you're saying: The proposal should have first been made within the Baha'i community, and the community should have engaged in consultation about the proposal. If the consultation generated a positive result, then, and only then, it should have been proposed publicly. If it had been determined *via consultation* that the t.r.b proposal was a good one, then there would have been no public acrimony (and little private acrimony, for that matter). The proposal would have likely passed with ease. This response *feels* right to me in my heart, the same way that Baha'u'llah's and 'Abdu'l-Baha's explanations do. So it may very well be the ideal solution. However, since the proposal has been made publicly, I don't think that using (or, arguably, abusing) the Usenet voting process is necessarily the best way to bring it back. The end doesn't justify the means. These are words to consider for the future. > Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about the process, we do > have some conventions within the Faith, and the majority of people who > participated in the vote were probably Baha'is. To wit: we avoid > embroiling ourselves in needless controversies; and if a unanimous decision > cannot be had we abide by the decision of the majority vote. I don't think > that this procedure need only be confined to the "Institutions", it seems > to me like a reasonable general principle. That's reasonable. Perhaps I have indeed answered one of my questions. But there are some other questions as well, related but distinct. We'll see what happens when the House replies to the note. > If a few Baha'is insist on continuing despite the feelings of the > majority (and never-mind which side is misguided), leave them to themselves. If t.r.b is defeated fairly, I would have no problem with that. I'd still post to a.r.b and s.r.b, as well as to B-D. If it passes fairly, same thing. Life would go on. In some ways, if the t.r.b discussion ended, those of us who hang out on a.r.b could be more effective in teaching there. The Maitreya thread and mainstream Buddhist responses to it -- now I see some opportunities there. I just wish I knew more about prophecies about the Maitreya Buddha. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:48 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Background to letter to House Unfortunately, I've forgotten who this person is. An individual using a pseudonym recently posted on news.groups saying he was the one who created it, but I have no way to know that for sure. DejaNews might have the announcement archived -- I'll look. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) John B. Cornell wrote: > > Roger Reini wrote: e > > > s.r.b was created in 1992, while a.r.b was > > created in early 1997 (by a non-Baha'i, by the way) as a reaction to the > > defeat of the first talk.religion.bahai (t.r.b) proposal. > > Dear Roger, > > Would you please tell us the name of the non-Baha'i > who created a.r.b.? We were all under the impression > that it was created by Frederick Glaysher. Thank you! > > John ---------- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca[SMTP:afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Messages purported to have been by me.... Dear Sir, You more than anyone should know that usenet is public forum. Anything you say there is public information. Period. Thank You. Afshin Afrashteh On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I ask you to remove any and all messages that appear to have been > written by me from your website. There are statements in at least > one such message that I do not recognize as my own. I'm not > entirely sure since the original context has been lost. > > I further request that no messages that I write for publication > elsewhere appear on your website. While I support your right > to state your opinions on the Bahai Faith, I do not support the use > of my messages written and posted elsewhere originally for other > purposes. > > Please confirm their removal by emailing me at > FG@hotmail.com > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 12:14 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: gavinreed@compuserv.com; smaneck@berry.edu Subject: Obedience and Civilians, etc In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Gavin, from Ottawa. If you are well it is well. Many thanks for your words below in response to the comments of Susan Maneck. I will repeat that what I attempted to prove quite openly was that there is freedom of thought, conscience and expression within the Baha'i Faith, and that the Universal House of Justice is not as the old Soviet Politburo. It was not a matter of baiting the Universal House of Justice. It was a question of informing them quite clearly that the narrow focus and the hesitation to apply Baha'i principle was preventing the expansion of the Baha'i Faith, was indeed erasing the good will which had been won by the fact Baha'is had been victims of the Iranian persecution, was rendering the Baha'i Faith incapable of achieving the purpose set for it by its Founder. I addressed this issue of unthinking obedience before. The word "Pagan" originally seems to have been used by early Christians to distinguish those who had enlisted (been baptized) in the army of Christ from those who hadn't, from the "Civilians". It is very clear that there are those who can take orders. The military mind set has always existed. I have some personal experience here. I was in the Reserves for four years up here. I won the trophy as the best radio operator in 3 Sigs Regiment when I was about twenty years old. It was not simply a question of meeting a rare bird who personally has trouble taking orders. It is a general situation. Yes, one may establish an elite force of those able to obey any order soever, and for this purpose this issue of women on the Universal House of Justice is perfect. It allows those of alternate mindset to be excluded. They won't be able to stomach what they perceive as the hypocrisy, the heavy handedness, to say nothing of the patriarchal and paternalistic nature of the force being created. History is full of such things and of the great sense of personal worth one feels in belonging to such an elite entity. However, the purpose of the mission of Baha'u'llah, despite the Babi history involving showing up the Shah's army and such terminology as the "Army of Light", was neither to foster a militaristic mindset, nor to create an elite fraction of the human species. As difficult as it seems to be for some with militaristic mindset within the Baha'i Faith to accept, this very aspect that enables them to delight in their elite nature is, naturally, not shared by the totality of the human species. It is a specific trait applicable only to some humans. It is not something that one can insist on from all humans. Within the Baha'i Faith there is enormous attention devoted to inculcating in the new believer the essential quality of obedience to authority. This is precisely the same thing that is done in the army. However, Baha'u'llah did not come to create an army, rather the reverse; He came to put an end to war. The consequence of this exclusive focus on obedience, unbalanced due to failure to provide guidance those lacking the militaristic mindset can acknowledge as worthy of the support of freeborn civilians, is that only some humans can enlist under the banner of Baha'u'llah. This permits the prolongation of that strong esprit de corps which pertains to any elite force. Yet, what then becomes of world peace and world harmony which Baha'u'llah claimed were the raison d'etre of His Cause? This was the purpose of my communication with the Universal House of Justice. Humans are advised in the Baha'i Revelation to strive for maturity, to tread the spiritual path with practical feet. Whatever else may be said on the issue, it is difficult to deny that the more mature, the more spiritual and the more practical way is one which overcomes the old army techniques of obedience for the sake of obedience, of masculine power structures and of censorship of information. Very conscious that demonizing those in authority and attempting to replace them was an old way of perceiving reality and a previous method of response, I did what I could to enable those in power to realize the requirements of this time, if the Baha'i Faith is to escape the trap of being the replication of the divisive elite forces of the past, rather than the fulfillment of Baha'u'llah's vision of an instrument to achieve the recognition of the harmonious nature of the human garden, a means to conclude childish squabbles and end war. It was my assessment that the best scenario was for the Universal House of Justice to take the actions required to allow not only those with a military mindset, those able to obey any order soever for the sake of obedience, to reside in an elite force, but all of humanity to whole-heartedly support a modern, progressive and principled Revelation whose goal was the end of militarism, and thus most effectively and most ethically to ensure the highest possible esteem for the Universal House of Justice itself. No harm at all results from the Universal House of Justice acting as advised in the Writings, passing legislation as required by the times, unimpeded by the best intentions of the past. I hope this explanation is adequate. May this find you very well, and may the future exceed our highest hopes. Blessed Be, Michael Date: Wed Oct 8 15:11:58 1997 From: gavinreed@compuserve.com ("Gavin E. Reed") Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice To: BAHAI-ST@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us ("[unknown]"), smaneck@berry.edu ("Maneck,Susan") In the Baha'i Studies List today: Susan Maneck wrote: [Quoting me]: > I > > don't think there were any "consequences" in Michael's case which he > > himself could not have predicted, given the position he chose to take. [Susan's response]: > That simply isn't true, Gavin. What the House did took us all by > surprise. It was a surprise because, as far as we could tell, it was > unprecedented. My guess is that Michael expected some kind of > warning to be given before any action was taken. He and the rest of > us were taken aback that that didn't happen. Speculations as to why > this happened ran wild until his wife received the letter from the > House. All right, I wasn't very clear. Certainly there were consequences of various sorts in Michael's case, including the reaction of the "peanut gallery". My intent was to suggest that the nature of Michael's oft-stated position were such that it should have not been surprising to anyone, including Michael, that someone who intractably takes such a position is "defining him/herself out" of membership in the Baha'i community. The only unusual aspect of this, in my view, is that the House of Justice apparently determined that, in Michael's case, he really didn't "get" the Baha'i Faith in a way which would justify his being expelled from the Cause as a Covenant-breaker, and, instead the House asked the Canadian NSA to remove him from their roles (which was the appropriate administrative protocol, since that's whose roster Michael's name was on), and notify him of this action. It seems obvious to me that Michael was intentionally baiting the House of Justice for some time, leading up to his posted letter to the House. On at least one occasion he stated that he was assuming his position (about all points of view being acceptable as manifestations of unity in diversity) was validated because the House hadn't censured him yet. This action of deliberately and persistently "pushing the envelope" of acceptable behavior appears to betray a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and spirit of the Covenant. It hardly seems in keeping with the spirit of humility and submission before the Lord of the Age to be systematically engaged in seeing what one can get away with. The Covenant is often characterized as a contract, and in a simplistic sense, this is true, but when we start treating this Divine "contract" legalistically, (where we construe our own obligations very narrowly, and the other party's obligations very broadly, in order to increase our own advantage), we are really missing the point of it, aren't we? It is for God to test His creatures, and not the other way around. The Covenant exists only for our benefit, providing we align ourselves with it appropriately. Of course we can ask questions to increase our understanding or resolve our perplexities. Responding to such needs is one of the functions of the House of Justice, clearly stipulated in the Master's Will and Testament. But when we cross the line from questioning for understanding to questioning the *wisdom* or *appropriateness* of the authoritative position of the Center of the Cause, we have violated at least the spirit of our responsibility to the Covenant, and we ought not to be surprised if we find ourselves relieved of the contract altogether. Warm regards, Gavin Reed END -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@math.unm.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 4:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai #2 yOn Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Would you consider being the group-mentor again for the second > proposal of talk.religion.bahai? You know the history of the > first one, whereas someone else coming in wouldn't... It is fine by me. However, in what way are you planning to change the charter, if any? I don't see that there is very much work for me to do if the charter will be identical to the previous one. ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@math.unm.edu] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 11:26 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai #2 On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Are you willing to email group-mentors and volunteer, or may I and > request you? You can contact them, if you want. It doesn't matter. I was getting innundated with mentors e-mail in July, so I asked to be taken off the list temporarily; but I have mentored two groups informally since then. There is no formal process of "assigning" a mentor. ---------- From: Chris[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.ukspamguard] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 12:36 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: pointers In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher wrote >I'll need then the subscription address for Uk Bahai Exchange to put >in the RFD. You can post blind to the UK Baha'i Exchange by sending the pointer to . I'm not sure how you would subscribe as I was put on direct by the listmaster at the time. I tried unsubscribing one time but failed abyssmally (sp.!). Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 9:11 AM To: gavinreed@compuserve.com Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re Obedience and Civilians In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Gavin, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for the attention you devoted to my post on obedience and civilians. First, I would like to say that I cannot predict the impact on me of the coming New Year, by which I mean Samhain, November 1st. This is a time for casting the past behind one's back and walking forward. I think it is very important to acknowledge all the good that resides in my past, as well as to demonstrate that freedom of expression may not be interfered with. Yet, finite limitations may render it increasingly difficult to do this as much as I would like. Second, could you kindly explain this phrase "Pushing the envelope". What is its origin and what precisely does it imply? It is an expression I never met before. It seems to mean trying to see what one can get away with. And, from my perspective the shoe is on the other foot. It seems to be literalist fundamentalists that are pushing the envelope of what is tolerable. I sought to prove that the Baha'i Faith is not a tyranny, and I sought to convey unmistakably to the highest authorities (such traditionally being cocooned against the real world by their remoteness from it and the natural surrounding of themselves with layers of courtiers, by whatever name, who will say only what those in power are believed to be willing to hear) that if the highest authorities, if the Universal House of Justice, I mean, is to attain a position where it may be respected by all the colours of humanity then they need to permit the freedom of thought, conscience and expression within the Baha'i Faith (suspend review) foster diversity of views, rather than insist solely on literalist fundamentalism, and there have to be women on the Universal House of Justice, especially since the only thing preventing this is the insistence on literalist fundamentalism, an insistence so intense it includes censoring information. Honestly I do not know how effectively to communicate with you and those of your mindset. If only there was telepathy on this planet then we would see something remarkable, both an increase in understanding and in humility. Yesterday I posted those two paragraphs from A. Alan Borovoy's book which state that to be uncompromising and closed-minded in beliefs is the attitude and behaviour of one worshipping the idol of one's own thoughts. This is precisely the Baha'i problem. It doesn't make any difference that literalist fundamentalists kindly allow others to have other views, if this renders such people non-Baha'is. It doesn't matter that such literalist fundamentalists say their beliefs are dictated by someone else, by Baha'u'llah, by the Guardian, by the Universal House of Justice. These are still beliefs, one imperfect spin on what those Sources have provided in the past century and more. While my perception is not infallible, I do not have a problem understanding this situation. I have a personal perception. I do not require a literalist implant. I refer to the new TV show EARTH THE FINAL CONFLICT. On this show aliens have come providing all kinds of marvels: agriculture in the Saharah, an end to disease, inter-dimensional (hence quite rapid) transportation between points on Earth, but those who are to work with these aliens need an implant. It is very reasonable that some humans would be very suspicious of this. My world view, my understanding of the Revelation of the Founder of the Baha'i Faith is inclusive. What has resonated with my soul has been the harmony of all those principles and passages of Baha'u'llah and His Predecessors and successors, as well as all others who have dwelt upon this world. How else can anything worthwhile be established at the level of the human species? The mindset being imposed within the Baha'i community is the opposite. It is exclusive. You say you do not force anyone to become or to remain a Baha'i. That is the tragic point. If you insist that only those who, forgive me, as slaves, as animals, as robots, as those who have received implants, swallow anything at all dictated by a literalist fundamentalist authority, may be included in your subset of humanity, then you are not permitting some colours of the rainbow of human thought to join you. You have taken what was intended by its Founder to include humanity and by your insistence on your beliefs, your refusal to embrace others who think differently you transform this into just another fundamentalist church. Your Golden Age will likely take place at the same time as the Jehovah Witnesses etc see Jesus coming in the clouds to give them eternal life upon the surface of this planet. God willing, this is the most harm you will inflict on humanity. God willing, the wider world's evolving acceptance of the principles enunciated by Baha'u'llah's will not allow you to offer us a rerun of the Dark Ages, when attitudes identical to your exclusivist literalist fundamentalism led to such historical events as would cause any decent being immense grief, and ought to offer any decent being more than sufficient warning as what crops to avoid planting. May this find you very well, and may the future exceed our highest hopes. Blessed Be, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 12:42 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Co-proponent? In message <876921562.0920414.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, > >I ask you to please keep all of the following just between >ourselves.... > >I noted you said lately you're busy with sundry private duties, >but I'm willing to explore with you the possibility of your being >a co-proponent of the trb proposal if you can find the time. Dear Fred, Just a very quick note as we have the ABM with us and other guests arriving over the next couple of days AND I have to get together the readigns for the Feast tomorrow AND try to get musicians AND do the accounts for the Skye and Lochalsh Young Music Makers..... Why do I agree to do these things. I will read you message in full later tonight (if I am allowed!) and give it my consideration. Have you asked anyone else, e.g. Roger? Will be in touch, until then (and after then) all the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@math.unm.edu] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 3:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 5th rough draft: talk.religion.bahai On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > talk.religion.bahai, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From > April 1, 1997, until September 23, 1997, over 2,716 messages have been > posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points > of view on the Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.52 messages per day for > 175 days, and 452.67 messages a month for six months. > > These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for > talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time > periods. The RFD is fine, except for this. Do *not* cite Dejanews as a source. I personally don't have any problem with it, but as the recent debacle ofver s.c.usa.south illustrated, certain news.groupies go ballistic when figures from Dejanews are cited. R.C. Harman suggested that the s.c.usa.south proponent should have read all 700 messages he found in a Dejanews keyword search, and he voted NO on that basis. He'll insist you read all 2,716 messages, if he's true to form. I think that we should encourage the use of Dejanews to prove traffic. After all, the more specific figures we can provide, the better, or so I reason. But Harman et al disagreed; I think that they were acting stupidly. Nonetheless, if they are going to act stupidly, I can't in good conscience tell proponents to cite Dejanews only to see them rebuked from the efforts. Thus, I recommend you be a little more general when citing figures. For instance, you might say "over 2,500 messages have been posted to a.r.bahai since its creeation," rather than pinpointing the number at 2716. Run it by me again. You might want to submit it yourself, directly to Tale, at newsgroups@isc.com. I can submit it if you want, but I am moving to Russia permanently on Tuesday, so it won't be high on my list of priorities for a couple of weeks. :( ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@math.unm.edu] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 10:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 5th rough draft: talk.religion.bahai On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Should your name and email be added to end of the RFD as > the group-mentor? That's fine, but please list cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu on the RFD. You can keep sending me e-mail to cstone@math.unm.edu. I will forward it. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 1997 3:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Co-proponent? Dear Fred, I'm sorry I have been so long replying. Things really have been so hectic here, both at home and at work, that I have hardly had time to think, which was essential before replying. We have guests at the moment, from one of the top teaching areas in the UK, but am taking a few minutes out to get this to you. Also, my apologies for the somewhat cryptic reply I sent earlier. I had read only the first couple of paragraphs so some of the comments were made without recourse to later paras. In message <876921562.0920414.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, > >I ask you to please keep all of the following just between >ourselves.... No problem. >I noted you said lately you're busy with sundry private duties, >but I'm willing to explore with you the possibility of your being >a co-proponent of the trb proposal if you can find the time. After the next couple of days I should be free of most of my obligations and am hoping to have more time to spare. >Actually, I doubt it would require a whole lot of your time. It's >been through so many drafts now it's actually overwritten as >a group-mentor seems to have suggested to me lately. Yes, I saw that you had posted the 6th draft but did nto find anything in it that I disagreed with enough to post. In fact, I doubt that there is much that is now open to question. Maybe it could do with shortening -- may people (myself included) don't find it easy to read long messages and may well skip important bits. maybe that is something worth discussing -- not the reduction of content so much as the reduction of words. However, having not, to date, explored the idea of starting a newsgroup, I am totally inignorance about the role of the proponent so would be grateful if you could expand on it. >I view it basically as a means of assuaging the fanaticism of >certain quarters, though I would be happy to have you aboard >since you have played an important role all along and have >contributed a lot as the months have gone by. There's no one >else I'm willing to consider.... I'm honoured. Thank-you. I do not see myself, however, in isolation. It is only through the postings of others that one can build on one's thoughts. I have a great admiration for, especiially, Roger, who has shown considerable tact and patience over the last few months. >There are a number of suggestions of late that I cannot agree >with: 1) that there be more than two co-proponents. I won't >put myself in a position where I could be outvoted. It's got to >be either agreement on everything or stalement. Whatever the technical whys and wherefores, in the end you _are_ the initiator of this project and, while I concur that consultation on the RFD etc. is essential, I also agree that you should have the final say. >2) No language >in the charter, a la Donald, regarding his interpretation of the >Bahai Writings on speech, etc. Sorry, I missed that one. It must have been posted about the time when I was pulling out and deleting a lot of messages unread. >3) No redundant disclaimer >discrediting trb from the very beginning. I don't see how the proponent could possibly argue that -- if he did it would kill the whole idea of the group. The principle counter-arguement here is the poor propagation of alt groups. If they WERE well proagated, there would be no reason to start up TRB. I think I ought to come clean though on the fact that I don't see the group being formed this time round. However, I DO think that the way this campaign is fouhgt WILL affect the next attempt. However, having said that I pray that the will of God be done and that that will should be that this group be formed. >If you can agree in good conscience to these three non-negotiable >areas, and don't object for whatever reason, I would be grateful to >have you officially serve as a co-proponent. Apart from 2) which, as I say, I don't quite understand, I have no problems here. >Whatever you decide, I owe you a sincere thank you for your many >contributions these many months.... Once again, thank-you. We may have had our differences occasionally, but I am well aware of how you feel and am envious of your experience in life. I became a Baha'i in 1990 and have stayed in exactly the same place since! However, I will tell you one confidence, and you only (at least for some time). At the time of my Pilgrimage, one of the few "promises" I made at the Threshold of the most sacred spot on earth was to try my best to teach the Faith over the Internet. Sometimes I feel that I am doing well, and then it all collapses in a heap and I get depressed. Maybe this is what it was all about, I don't know. Anyway, please keep that to yourself. >Let's keep any followup discussion in private email. Certainly. All the best, Chris. PS Any good ideas for a good sig. for the campaign to come? Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- O SON OF MAN! Ascend unto My heaven, that thou mayest obtain the joy of reunion, and from the chalice of imperishable glory quaff the peerless wine. [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html or https://www.baha.demon.co.uk ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 5:32 AM To: Tale David Lawrence Cc: fglaysher Subject: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear David Lawrence: > You might want to submit it yourself, directly to > Tale, at newsgroups@isc.com. Above, Chris Stone , group-mentor for talk.religion.bahai, has suggested I send you a copy of the RFD. Since the proposal was voted down in March 157 to 691, and there has been recently very similiar NO vote campaigning against it on private Bahai lists, I would greatly appreciate it if you could find a moment to review it and make any suggestions you think might increase the odds of getting it passed. Jonathan Grobe and many other people have already helped improve it through at least six major drafts during the last month and a half. This copy has been revised again since I first submitted it on September 28th to the group-mentors. Please post this one to news.announce.newgroups, unless you feel it should be revised too in some way. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. RFD follows: ----------- This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai 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 Bahai 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. 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. The proponent intends 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 lower order 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Bahai-Exchange-UK@BCCA.Org And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs. Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human Group-mentor: Chris Stone cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu Proponent: Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Peter da Silva[SMTP:peter@taronga.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 8:15 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? > I'd like to ask you to serve as the votetaker for talk.religion.bahai. If you're doing a conventional Usenet vote, I'll have to decline. First, I'm extremely busy and I can't afford to spend time on a vote that isn't going to run on my proposed scheme. Second, there are plenty of perfectly qualified and objective UVV votetakers. If I were to run a conventional vote it would only serve to undermine them. So, you don't need me for this, and it wouldn't serve a useful purpose for me to run it. If you want me to run a multi-way vote I will be more willing to take on the task. ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@math.unm.edu] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 11:49 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? In article <01bcdd4f$a5042b40$752ab3c7@glaysher> you write: >It seems to me I should email the people who voted YES last time >since they may not have access to alt.religion.bahai or even >know another vote is approaching.... Many only had access to the >Big 8 hierarchy.... No, please do NOT send e-mail to anyone based on RESULT postings. It is intrusive, and many people resent it. It will probably create a backlash and provoke a couple of NO votes. ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@dd.org] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 3:06 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: posted "RFD: talk.religion.bahai" [ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] On 20 Oct 1997 (Mon), at 19:06:43 GMT, your proposal was posted to the following groups. This list might be different from what was originally requested if the Newsgroups header was over 200 characters long, some of the groups were bogus (ie, superseded Big 8 groups) or not carried by my news server (like defunct alt groups), or other relevant groups were noted and added. news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai talk.religion.misc soc.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel It was also sent separately to the following group, for which another moderator must approve it: soc.religion.bahai It was also sent separately to the following lists: Talisman@umich.edu Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Bahai-Exchange-UK@BCCA.Org David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 7:17 PM To: SRB Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re injustice Clayton Ramsey wrote in article <62gi4b$ek1@itchy.serv.net>... [clip] I know that we are not supposed to expose the > sins of individuals, but how are we supposed to deal with institutional > injustices? It seems like most everything has a political agenda now. What > about grave injustices perpetrated by individuals or groups of > individuals? Can we expose them? > I may seem eager to go in search of injustices to expose. I am. I am > probably too young to know exactly what my contribution to society is, but > this is one possibility. It is the nature of injustice that it renders recognition and discussion of itself difficult at best.... redefining the terms and vocabulary by which it can or cannot be perceived.... Alas, no more can be said.... Indeed, perhaps too much has already been said.... Incidentally, the RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. You can find more discussion of these matters there.... [clip] > Have at it. > > Clayton -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: Henrietta K. Thomas[SMTP:hkt@wwa.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:18 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "Henrietta Thomas" > Subject: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:45:01 -0400 > Henrietta, > > Would you consider serving as the votetaker for talk.religion.bahai? If I knew how to do it, and I thought tale would accept it, I might. But I am not a member of the UVV, don't know anything about the voting software, and I don't think tale would accept a vote taken by anyone other than the UVV or (possibly) da Silva. > I don't believe I should risk a Usenet II kind of split vote that > Peter da Silva has suggested, and I'm afraid of someone biased > doing the job.... I agree that da Silva's system would not help much here. But I don't think you should be afraid of the UVV. I doubt very much if any of them would count votes they didn't receive, or count YES votes as NO. I think you will have to trust them whether you want to or not. > I don't know if you have the time or every volunteer for voting, > but I'd appreciate it. As I said above, even if I had the time, I do not have the expertise. It takes a while to learn how to be a votetaker. One thing I can do, though, is to check the vote tally for error after it is posted. > I sent David Lawrence at news.announce.newgroups the final RFD > this morning. Yes, I saw your notice in news.groups. The thing for you to do now is to be very calm during the discussion period, and answer all questions honestly. Then do the PQ as soon as you can and pray. Take care, Henrietta ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 1:53 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: pointers In message <877433609.1423591.0@hm3.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Incidentally, we've just plain run out of time on the >co-proponent idea.... We'd have to repost a 2nd RFD >and start all over. Probably not worth the effort. If it >actually becomes a big problem, we could always do >that.... > >Let me know when you have the RFD on your website >and I'll then post all of the pointers. I want to wait too >untill the RFD actually shows up on more news servers >or people will check and it won't be there. > >How about the following for a signature: Dear Fred, I really am sorry about not getting back to you. Life here is getting more desperate by the day. Tonight I have to typeset a booklet for Thursday and also to be polite to the remains of our guests, one of whom has been take ill. However, the RFD is up on as of now. Please check it out and let me know if you are happy with it. Sorry, must rush -- will be in touch, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can also find the RFD on the webpage given below. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.announce.newgroups or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: RFD: talk.religion.bahai In message <877457344.1021254.0@hm3.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, can you post this? > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The message WAS posted for a while and then deleted by the list-master. I have posted an e-mail asking the members if I can re-post it from myself (Nick is more likely to say "yes" to a request) and, if not, to post a pointer. The only response on the group was one asking wasn't the group for Baha'is only -- was it you that posted it, or Chris Stone? Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:09 AM To: Baha'i Request Subject: Pointers to RFD: TRB: (Re: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions) I'd like to post the pointer to the RFD for talk.religion.bahai to the following lists, which I subscribed to a few weeks ago.... I know I'm no longer subscribed to some of them. Perhaps I should resubscribe and then post but it seems such a waste of your time, if not mine.... I have individually emailed in a pointer for each one, they should be around there already somewhere, but am concerned they'll bounce. I forgot I had unsubscribed from some of them.... Would you be willing to post the RFD to them anyway, or should I resubscribe? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- > From: Joseph Khoury > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.com > Subject: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 12:58 PM > > > I don't want to subscribe but unsubscribe from BINS, Tech, > > Bahai-singles, Helping, Homeschool, Teachers, Race Unity, and Readings. > > I'd appreciate it if you could make > > sure I'm off them. My email address for receiving them is > > > > fglaysh@hotmail.com > > > > > > Dear Frederick Glaysher, > > You have been removed from the above mentioned mailing lists (you must > have been getting about five zillion messages per day!); you are still > subscribed to the following lists: > Announce;BCF;Discuss;Youth > > If this is not what you want, please let us know! > > Joseph Khoury > (just one of the BCCA Lists Managers) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 2:56 PM To: Baha'i Youth Subject: Fw: mail failed, returning to sender Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- > From: MAILER-DAEMON@bounty.bcca.org > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: mail failed, returning to sender > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:00 AM > > |------------------------- Message log follows: -------------------------| > no valid recipients were found for this message > |------------------------- Failed addresses follow: ---------------------| > ... unknown user > |------------------------- Message text follows: ------------------------| > Received: from hotmail.com by bcca.org with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xNytL-0003rOC; Wed, 22 Oct 97 07:23 EDT > Message-Id: > Received: (qmail 13908 invoked from network); 22 Oct 1997 11:23:57 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) > by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 1997 11:23:57 -0000 > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: > Subject: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:24:03 -0400 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second > proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai > and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can > also find the RFD on the webpage given below. > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:11 AM To: Baha'i Campus Forum Subject: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can also find the RFD on the webpage given below. By UseNet guidelines, all discussion of the proposal should take place in news.groups. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:14 AM To: Baha'i Youth Subject: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai By UseNet guidelines, all discussion of the proposal should take place in news.groups. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:51 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai C Pemberton-Pigott wrote: > > Dear Friends > > Chris wrote: > >> (fwd) Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need > >>an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever > >>side of the freeway we want to? > > > (Chris) I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is > not a > >highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the > >difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works > >canteen > > There is no doubt that spiritual deaths can and do happen on the > Information Superhighway. The evisceration of the spirit and personal pain > akin to what JH describes harm people for decades and cripples their > emotional lives. This is the exact intent of some of the Covenant > Breakers. It is their sick desire to inflict pain. They feel no need to > "win". Pain will suffice. This is true. It is also true that spiritual enlightenment and rebirth can be found -- or at least promoted -- on the Net. I found the discussions on s.r.b in 1993 very useful in my investigations of the Faith. > I think if you look into Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of opposition and of > Covenant Breaking you find how he describes the illnesses, their > transmissability and characteristics, and describes how to minimize their > negative influences. Hate, intolerance, vilification, demonification and > all their running dogs are characteristics of the lowest debasment of the > human spirit. It is the antithesis of good sense to provide institutional > support for its manifestations without some sort mechanism for limiting the > damage to society by the sick and the demented. We should remember that CB's and others who wish to attack the Faith have access to other newsgroups and forums (fora?) now. The creation of t.r.b, if it happens, will not give them a forum where one never existed. > >The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. > > We do not tolerate forums where they pontificate on the merits of mugging > and drug taking - oh yeah we do - the Net! The net should be run according > to rules similar to those used by the Guinness Book of records. For the > safety of the human race, for example, they no longer entertain entries > into the "Closest to the ground before opening your parachute" category. > Why? Because it is manifestly dangerous and serves no useful purpose > anyway. "Should be" and "is" are two very different things, as we all know. The Net culture (such as it is) does reflect the culture of society in general, especially Western culture at its most libertarian. Is it in complete accordance with the teachings of the Faith? No, of course it isn't. IMHO, trying to impose a culture change from outside when the existing culture is resistant to it or not ready for it will fail. The change must come from within. We know this already. While we use the Net, we Baha'is need to conduct ourselves not only according to the teachings, but also to the standards and policies of the Net. But what happens when they conflict? IMHO, they do not conflict to the extent of forcing us to deny our faith. So we should follow the Net standards and policies -- and if we can't, then we shouldn't participate. And this includes the upcoming vote on t.r.b. As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the process. I don't think I should say anything more right now, because some harsh thoughts are coming to mind. Time to say a few Remover of Difficulties and call on the Divine Physician. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 11:01 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: SRB Subject: Re: Fw: Re injustice Thanks for pointing it out, I'll check on it later today. Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I haven't seen this message yet on srb though it's been four days since > I first posted it.... > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at > > ---------- > > From: Teri Rhan > > To: Frederick Glaysher > > Cc: srb moderators > > Subject: Re: Re injustice > > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:42 PM > > > > Dear Frederick, > > I'm not sure why you sent this posting 2 times, I will post the first one > > and delete this one. > > > > Teri Rhan > > trhan@serv.net > > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > Clayton Ramsey wrote in article > > > <62gi4b$ek1@itchy.serv.net>... > > > > > > [clip] > > > > > > I know that we are not supposed to expose the > > > > sins of individuals, but how are we supposed to deal with > institutional > > > > injustices? It seems like most everything has a political agenda now. > > > What > > > > about grave injustices perpetrated by individuals or groups of > > > > individuals? Can we expose them? > > > > I may seem eager to go in search of injustices to expose. I am. I am > > > > probably too young to know exactly what my contribution to society > is, > > > but > > > > this is one possibility. > > > > > > It is the nature of injustice that it renders recognition and > discussion > > > of itself difficult at best.... redefining the terms and vocabulary by > > > which it can or cannot be perceived.... Alas, no more can be said.... > > > Indeed, perhaps too much has already been said.... > > > > > > Incidentally, the RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to > > > news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. You can find more > > > discussion of these matters there.... > > > > > > [clip] > > > > > > > Have at it. > > > > > > > > Clayton > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 12:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 900 NO votes threatened hAVE TO ADMIT THAT i DID NOT SEE THIS ONE. I suspect it is a troll but would like a copy anyway. All teh best, Chris. In message <877604986.0918026.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Roger Reini wrote in article >> <344f1273.58225453@news.zippo.com>... > >> > >> > I do not recall seeing the specific threat of 900 NO votes. This is >> > not to refute the notion that there has been opposition to the t.r.b >> > proposal on that mailing list -- I'm only saying I don't recall seeing >> > that specific message. >> > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in article ><01bcdf1b$7ce00b20$792ab3c7@glaysher>... >> I'd be happy to post the entire message if people don't mind, or >> just a few quotations from it, if preferred.... The exact date of the >> message was October 3rd.... I could remove the person's name and >> email too.... > >Since you are a subscriber to Bahai-Discuss anyway, I'll forward to you >a copy of the full message. Shouldn't be anything wrong in doing that. >I'll send one to Chris Manvell too since he subscribes and may have >missed it too.... > >> >> >> > >> > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >> > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ >> > >> Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 12:25 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Regarding t.r.b. In message <877605040.1212827.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> This is the bottom line Fred, get the House's approval and you'll have >900 >> yes votes, without it you'll have 900 no votes... Hot air Fred. Or shoudl I say hyperbole. Mr. M. certainly does not like the idea of TRB but his tone will put people off. I have already responded to a couple of his messages. Ditto the list master of BXUK. Incidentally, the RFD DID appear on BXUK but somehow got delayed so teh response arrived before the post. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 3:59 PM To: Fredrick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: injustice (fwd) My newserver here shows that your posting was posted and showed up on 10/20. Not sure why you're not seeing it yet. Thanks, Teri Rhan Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 20 Oct 1997 20:40:16 -0700 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: injustice Clayton Ramsey wrote in article <62gi4b$ek1@itchy.serv.net>... [clip] I know that we are not supposed to expose the > sins of individuals, but how are we supposed to deal with institutional > injustices? It seems like most everything has a political agenda now. What > about grave injustices perpetrated by individuals or groups of > individuals? Can we expose them? > I may seem eager to go in search of injustices to expose. I am. I am > probably too young to know exactly what my contribution to society is, but > this is one possibility. It is the nature of injustice that it renders recognition and discussion of itself difficult at best.... redefining the terms and vocabulary by which it can or cannot be perceived.... Alas, no more can be said.... Indeed, perhaps too much has already been said.... Incidentally, the RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. You can find more discussion of these matters there.... [clip] > Have at it. > > Clayton -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 7:40 AM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <01bcdfba$8cf04940$7b2ab3c7@glaysher>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >Well, if you'll permit me to say so, I believe only in the sense of a > >"reality" that he can control and "improve" on.... And that's the whole > >problem with soc.religion.bahai, and why I and others desire an unmoderated > >newsgroup we can trust.... > > I am not impressed with your implication that he is telling lies. > > Prove it or shut up. How could I or anyone do that when srb has complete control over the "facts"? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > > > >Chris wrote in article > >... > > > > >There's something wonderful about human diversity, and John is part of > >the richness of UseNet.... No offense to John, not meaning him, but we > >meet cranks in all walks of life.... Why not here? > > Why not indeed. Actually, it is often the "cranks" that make us sit up > and think. My English soul is all for Hyde Park.... [clip] > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. > Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 7:55 AM Subject: Re: UseNet II voting system? Russ Allbery wrote: > > In news.groups, Frederick Glaysher writes: > > > I've been reluctant to embrace quickly Peter da Silva's voting system > > only because I know nothing about it and am worried that most Usenet > > administrators might not accept the RESULTS and add the group. > > No real comment on your question here, but the subject line is highly > confusing. Peter da Silva's voting system, by which I presume you mean > single transferable votes in Big Eight voting, predates Usenet II by quite > some time and is a Big Eight voting system. It has nothing to do with > Usenet II at all. In your opinion, given Bahais are threatening 900 NO votes, do you think his voting system might be effective in passing talk.religion.bahai? > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 8:10 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: alt.r.bahai traffic data Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > [clip] > This resulted in a file with 2771 entries. So I think it > safe to say that I have a file which contains the subject > and author of 2771 of the more than 3000 posted articles > to alt.religion.bahai. I don't know why there is such a > discrepency between what DejaNews has and what various > news server numberings have shown to be the total number > of postings to A.R.B. Perhaps someone with more knowledge > could conjecture. I find 2771 a quite credible number and am willing to accept it as the probable estimate of postings to arb. I appreciate all your work in precisely calculating it. > [clip] > The following is the top 50 entries from each list. Those who > would like access to the complete lists for their own analysis > please let me know. You give only the top 50? Many, many topics and authors run only a few posts or so.... A complete list would certainly demonstrate much more effectively the diversity of subjects and people on arb. Please post it, if you would, to arb and news.groups. > > ARB postings at DejaNews sorted by author > ============================================ > > Note that several authors appear more than once because of > posting from different accounts or with different "From:" > lines. > > 1. 382 Frederick Glaysher > 2. 193 rreini@wwnet.com (R > 3. 125 Donald Zhang Osborn > 4. 124 Chris 5. 116 maitreya@worldnet.a > 6. 103 FG@hotmail.c > 7. 77 "Frederick Glaysher > 8. 76 nokhodchi@hotmail.c > 9. 70 webmaster@iranvisio > 10. 46 faryar 11. 44 Sharaf 12. 37 Joseph Crea 13. 36 Chris 14. 31 Roger Reini 15. 31 Kavosh Soltani 16. 30 Harry Duran 17. 27 DebbieEDP@worldnet. > 18. 27 "John P. Boatwright > 19. 24 Notarius 20. 23 rdetweil@primenet.c > 21. 21 peter@taronga.com ( > 22. 19 doloresv@worldnet.a > 23. 18 math5ijf@math.cante > 24. 18 Kent Sandvik 25. 17 skerpan@hotmail.com > 26. 15 pjohnson@leo.vsla.e > 27. 15 john 28. 15 jimrtex@pipeline.co > 29. 14 renton@frii.com > 30. 14 john markovitch 31. 14 Abir Majid 32. 14 "Kent Sandvik (Utop > 33. 13 obfusa@rt66.com > 34. 12 sinboy@netcom.com ( > 35. 12 bahai@hotmail.com > 36. 12 Richard Menninger < > 37. 11 nospam@nospam.com ( > 38. 11 jabowery@netcom.com > 39. 11 "Alma F. Engels" 40. 10 wildwings@peconic.n > 41. 10 jkramer1@nospamswar > 42. 10 djensen@best.com (D > 43. 10 "JAMES:ForLang Book > 44. 10 "JAMES: SL Bookstor > 45. 9 sandy@roundthebend. > 46. 8 sarahedp@worldnet.a > 47. 8 Maureen Atkinson 48. 8 Amicus@webtv.net (D > 49. 7 ksm8p@avery.med.Vir > 50. 7 hkt@wwa.com (Henrie > Mmmmm, stopping at 50 is a real problem, I fear.... > ARB postings at DejaNews sorted by subject > ============================================ > > Note that several of these may be off by one or two postings > because of larger posts having the "#x/y" tag on the end of > the subject and thus would have been sorted out of these > numbers. Also add at least 1 for each subject starting with > "Re:" for the base note. > > 1. 207 Re: The truth about Mait > 2. 83 Re: The Baha'i Faith > 3. 72 Re: UseNet "Guidelines"? > 4. 42 Some UNanswered question > 5. 37 Re: Religious Freedom an > 6. 36 Re: Rereading Baha'i quo > 7. 35 Re: More SRBahai censors > 8. 32 Re: Mind Bothering Claim > 9. 30 Re: Blasphemy: Its impac > 10. 29 Re: Anti-Persian Racism > 11. 27 Re: More Bahai Censorshi > 12. 27 Re: 3rd Rough Draft: tal > 13. 26 Re: Incident With Bahais > 14. 25 Re: False divisions, fal > 15. 22 Re: Something for us to > 16. 22 Re: Shiite Interpretatio > 17. 22 Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Ba > 18. 21 Re: Re Non-sense > 19. 19 Re: Lost messages on SRB > 20. 18 Re: alt.religion.bahai > 21. 18 Re: Offer to Individuals > 22. 16 Re: Servers? alt.religio > 23. 15 Re: Maitreya NOT on eart > 24. 14 Re: The execution of The > 25. 14 Re: The Bahai Future? > 26. 14 Re: Other listservs? (wa > 27. 13 Re: UseNet "Common Law" > 28. 13 Re: Marreita CAUGHT LYIN > 29. 13 Re: 4th Rough Draft: tal > 30. 12 Re: WHO ARE YOU, MAITREY > 31. 12 Re: Question concerning > 32. 12 Re: Covenant breaking, w > 33. 12 Re: A Perfect Example > 34. 11 Re: Joseph Emmanuel (was > 35. 10 Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing > 36. 10 Re: Where are they? alt. > 37. 10 Re: The Baha'i Faith#1/2 > 38. 10 Re: Six months ago today > 39. 10 Re: It is worse than we > 40. 9 Re: email echo/listserv: > 41. 9 Re: Rereading Baha'i#1/2 > 42. 9 Re: Re Bahai Arts Forum > 43. 9 Re: Moderation and liber > 44. 9 Re: False divisions,#1/2 > 45. 9 Re: Backbiting > 46. 8 Re: vote on talk.religio > 47. 8 Re: Screwed up Baha'i Ad > 48. 8 Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-9 > 49. 8 Re: SRB Censored: 4-20-9 > 50. 8 Re: Inquiring (second tr Again, much of the activity will only show up belong the 50 mark.... > > Dick D. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 8:38 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:06:44 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > > > I see no technical objections to the naming or placement of the > newsgroup. However, IMHO, the proposal has almost no chance of being > approved because of the likelihood of bloc voting against it. If people are observing UseNet netiquette, why should there be bloc voting? > > There is a widespread feeling in the online Baha'i community that an > unmoderated newsgroup devoted to the Baha'i Faith will harm the image > of the Faith in the eyes of the public. Bloc voting doesn't harm the image of the Bahai Faith? As we all know, in an > unmoderated newsgroup, almost anything goes. It could become a spam > haven, a repository for massively and inappropriately crossposted > articles, a forum for flamewars and other immoderate discussion, etc. > Such conduct is not in accord with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, > and it is felt that having such conduct in a newsgroup named > "talk.religion.bahai" would reflect badly upon the Faith and its > adherents. Spam, etc., happens in all groups.... > > There are also concerns that talk.religion.bahai would provide a forum > for enemies of the Faith to launch attacks upon it. Based on all > these reasons, many feel that the proposal should be vigorously > opposed and defeated. It is true that since the posting of the RFD and pointers on Oct. 20th, many, many messages have been posted to Bahai lists attacking TRB. These messages have not been posted, as they should be, under UseNet discussion guidelines, to news.groups or to alt.religion.bahai, as directed in the RFD. Violating UseNet guidelines does not harm the image of the Bahai Faith? Now, as a Baha'i, I understand and sympathize > with these opinions. There is some truth in them. However, IMHO, I > believe that such action (a massive No vote) would be contrary to the > spirit of the Big 8 newsgroup creation process, and I pointed this out > in private discussions. This advice has been rejected, unfortunately. I do wish to acknowledge that Mr. Reini has seemed to have made admirable efforts on Bahai-Discuss, where much of the NO votes are being marshalled, as they apparently were last time.... Many, if not most, of the Bahais currently posting there are represented in the NO vote roster, and more vehement than ever.... > > To anybody who may be thinking of organizing a YES vote bloc, I urge > you not to do so. That would only promote divisiveness, which is > contrary to the Baha'i teachings. Hold on.... Who's creating the "divisiveness"? Who's willfully violating UseNet customary voting procedures? Perhaps it might be wise to > temporarily withdraw the proposal until a more opportune time. And wouldn't Bahais love that.... When would the "opportune time" come? At the > same time, it might not be a bad idea to boost the propagation of > alt.religion.bahai (that idea would need to be taken to alt.config). It can be boosted by creating talk.religion.bahai on the Big 8.... > > [snip] > >Mentor: Chris Stone > >Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 8:59 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: alt.r.bahai traffic data Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > [clip] > > > This resulted in a file with 2771 entries. So I think it > > safe to say that I have a file which contains the subject > > and author of 2771 of the more than 3000 posted articles > > to alt.religion.bahai. I don't know why there is such a > > discrepency between what DejaNews has and what various > > news server numberings have shown to be the total number > > of postings to A.R.B. Perhaps someone with more knowledge > > could conjecture. > > I find 2771 a quite credible number and am willing to accept > it as the probable estimate of postings to arb. I appreciate > all your work in precisely calculating it. > > > On further reflection, it seems to me it needs to be recalled that these figures only reflect those who, after the last vote, were able to obtain access to the alt.* hierarchy.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:04 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: alt.r.bahai traffic data Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > [clip] > > > This resulted in a file with 2771 entries. So I think it > > safe to say that I have a file which contains the subject > > and author of 2771 of the more than 3000 posted articles > > to alt.religion.bahai. I don't know why there is such a > > discrepency between what DejaNews has and what various > > news server numberings have shown to be the total number > > of postings to A.R.B. Perhaps someone with more knowledge > > could conjecture. > > I find 2771 a quite credible number and am willing to accept > it as the probable estimate of postings to arb. I appreciate > all your work in precisely calculating it. > > > > > [clip] > It seems to me that the reasoning of one group's fear of others damaging their "image" is tantamount to Catholics and Protestants, or Sunnis and Shiis, fighting over their particular brand of the truth.... I haven't made that an issue, but I believe some Bahais are by denying myself and others a fair and honest vote on talk.religion.bahai, which, if fairness and honesty had been observed the first time, would have passed.... > > > > > Dick D. > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 2:11 PM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: irfan@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: TRBahai Reply to Gloomy Analysis The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I would like to say first that a post of mine pre-dating my reading of the letter from the Universal House of Justice in which the Universal House of Justice clearly expresses the adoption in cyberspace of a general Baha'i policy of freedom of thought and expression has been reposted to news.groups. I think the letter from the Universal House of Justice has opened things up, and my gloomy analysis is modified as a result. However, this depends on the support the Universal House of Justice receives from Baha'is. If those who had assumed that the Universal House of Justice was opposed to the formation of talk.religion.bahai look for subtext in this letter contradictory to its literal meaning (for example, in my view, misinterpret a guidance to avoid entering into debate, arguing perhaps, with Covenant Breakers, as a coded indication that really the Universal House of Justice wants talk.religion.bahai voted down to prevent the possibility of such people, or anyone else, posting in an unmoderated newsgroup) and give several hundred more NO votes to this proposal, the intent of the Universal House of Justice to demonstrate a Baha'i policy fostering the freedom of the individual to express personal opinion in cyberspace will fail and you'll have cynical comments about PR. Also, if those who had talked and thought a lot about the need for things to open up within the Baha'i Faith fail to take advantage of this opportunity what was the result of all this talk and thought? This newsgroup in one of the big 8 hierarchies of USENET is the kind of freedom you've been calling for. I've received assessments (and not from Frederick Glaysher or anyone I've noticed posting to news. groups) that are very distrustful and cynical of this letter, and which include the opinion that TRB will be monitored by Baha'i authorities and those saying what these authorities do not wish to hear sanctioned. In my opinion, such a mistrust of the literal meaning of the letter is highly regretable. At the least, it would be amazing for anyone to be sanctioned for voting YES and reading the new group. Note that the point has been made on news.groups that the number of people who voted YES last time round exceeded the number who successfully approved fifteen newsgroups since then. The more of you who support by your votes, even if you feel you can only read, talk.religion.bahai the greater the opportunity for you to see whether things are really as gloomy as you feel. If you wish, just read quietly and post uncontrovertial views and let someone else utter the controversial view you feel would get you punished and see whether things are as bad as you dread. In my view, this letter reflects a current policy from the Universal House of Justice, and it would be completely contrary to their considered ruling in favour of freedom of expression for them to punish anyone for voting for and reading talk.religion.bahai and even to censure you for expressing your opinion whatever it may be, in a flame free manner. And, perhaps it may assist you to overcome any trepidation to consider the kind of PR that would occur if there were such a newsgroup as Talk.religion.bahai so very publicly able to monitor how Baha'i authorities follow these policies of the Universal House of Justice on freedom of expression. So, rather than despairing about the insincerity of this letter vote your conscience, as the letter says, and give reality a chance to dissipate your gloomy despair. Fare very Well, Michael This is also being posted to the Baha'i lists: irfan, Bahai-st and talisman. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 10:43 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: alt.r.bahai traffic data R. Craig Harman wrote: > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > If for nothing more than to check the validity of my assumptions, > could you simply post a count of posters and threads. I'd like to Mr. Detweiler, would you be willing to post a total count of each? > see if my estimation technique was reasonable... > > -- > Robert Craig Harman En France, appelez 01 34 80 04 83 pour > BYU Chemical Engineering recevoir un Livre de Mormon gratuit... > Master's Candidate > LDS France Paris Mission https://www.et.byu.edu/~harmanc/paris/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 10:53 AM Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > In fact, no Baha'i Institution has directed any believer to vote in a > > > particular way. > > > > Yes, it has. It's simply done it in an extremely underhanded manner that > > befits the way these sorts of organizations usually conduct themselves. > > > > > "Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their > > > own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their > > > understanding of the principles of the Faith." (letter of Oct. 14 1997) > > > > Note the hidden implication here that if you make the wrong decision, you > > don't understand the principles of the Faith as well as you should or your > > conscience is flawed. > > > > No individual is perfect and therefore all of our understandings have > flaws. It sufficeth to follow our own conscience. My understanding of > Baha'i teachings is that a wrong decision is not seen as the end of the > world if done with good intentions. The consequences will be suffered > and learning will result. The purpose of this life is learning and > acquiring virtues. > Nowhere in the letter from which the above quotation is taken is there > the slightest hint as to which decision is correct. Therefore, no > hidden implication exists. The highest Institution of the Baha'i Faith > has told individual Baha'is to rely on their own understading and make > their own decision! Is the UHJ asking Bahais to flaunt the rules for Usenet voting? I don't think so.... Conscience, in terms of stuffing the ballot box, is not applicable in this context. You and other, I believe, are misreading the message in order to feed into your own fanatical interpretations and motives.... To ignore the consultation on news.groups regarding proper voting procedure on Usenet is a misuse of your conscience and faculties. > In fact, normally, within Baha'i communities the spirit with which one > undertakes to formulate a plan or reach a decision is more important > than the outcome. You can, for example, undertake to build the most > beautiful Temple on earth but if in the process you are the source of > irreperable disunity or estrangement between people, then your work has > not borne good fruit and is unacceptable. The people creating "disunity or estrangement between people" are very much the fundamentalist Bahais who misguidedly depriving others of the right to discuss the Bahai Faith without the interference of individuals who believe they have the sole truth in regard to everything.... Our Writings tell us that if > two people 'fight' and create contention over religion, then, neither is > correct regardless of the ideas expressed. A very convenient notion for those who wish to wield tyranny over others.... I believe you misuse this principle from the Writings. This is because the 'Spirit > in action' is more important than words or enterprises. > In this situation I believe that a Baha'i that wishes to vote should > become fully acquainted with the proposal, the methods and rules of > group formation, and with disregard to the personalities involved in > debate, meditate on the matter and place their votes according to the > dictates of their conscience. You're constant echoing of "conscience," to my mind, shows you have none.... And are intending to abuse the usual unwritten "constitution," if you will, similar to the unwritten British Bill of Rights and Constitution, I argue..... If by my statement, I still am > demonstrating a lack of understanding for the rules regarding the > formation of newsgroups and the above process is not acceptable, please > educate me further. Education requires willingness on the part of the student to learn.... I seriously doubt the sincerity of you and other Bahais on Bahai-discuss.... Your tone is more that of one who has found a specious method of circumventing the rules and is now flaunting it.... > > Sincerely, > Roxana Morgan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:10 AM Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Sharon Bouchard wrote: > Not like you asked me, but I would urge any interested party to vote > their conscience. "Conscience" is not a proper category in terms of Usenet interest polling.... The UHJ may very well fail to understand the nature of the accepted reasons for voting.... You and other Bahais, I believe, are misreading the UHJ's message to suit your own designs.... [clip] > Clearly, "the Baha'i faith" is not imposing anything. > > What my personal take on this is that individual Baha'is have been put > off by the manner in which this ng has been pitched. Also, I suspect > many, if not most, of them are not aware of the wider issues on > Usenet, which is why I've encouraged them to get on here and get all > the evidence to work with when coming to their decision. That is, they have to have absolute control over everything thought and said, or else.... I applaud your messages to Bahai-discuss encouraging people there to share their consultation with those here on news.groups, where the discussion is supposed to be taking place properly.... Would you repost and post all of your messages to Bahai-discuss here too so as to show you're working in good faith? > I'm convinced that, my misgivings aside, and ignoring the > personalities involved, that t.r.b. is a good idea, and I will vote > accordingly. Bahai teachings state we should not vote for personalities, nor let personalities get in the way.... Why are you and others using ME as an excuse? > I will continue to encourage the Baha'is who are not here to come and > find out those wider issues, and I will continue to urge them to look > past the personalities involved and only at the issues themselves. > This is exactly in line with Baha'i principles of consultation, and I > doubt many will fail to see this, especially if a few individuals will > knock off insulting the integrity of others simply because they dare > to have a different opinion than said individuals. It works both ways. Will Bahais have the integrity to observe proper Usenet voting procedure and not once again stuff the ballot box with NO votes? [clip] > Or you're not seeing more than the tip of the iceberg here. We don't > teach "uniformity" but "unity in _diversity_". That's hardly refusing > to see the glorious diversity of the universe. I believe soc.religion.bahai and many Bahais chant this slogan but ultimately desire and impose a very deadly uniformity on all thought and conscience.... > > Nor are we locked into a rigid hierarchical structure because we don't > want to think for ourselves. Then why the bloc voting? > > Were it otherwise, I assure you I would still be an atheist. And if > things ever got the way you describe, I would turn my back and walk > out without a second thought. You better look around a little more carefully.... > > I left the religion I was raised in *because* it demanded I not think > for myself, and because I knew that no one but a small cadre of white > men would ever have any say in anything of importance. Forgive me, but a cliche.... Comparable to many in the Bahai "world".... > > So I'd have to be really deranged to take up a form of theism that > taught the very things I despised so much that I left theism. > > Judge for yourself, by my posts, if I sound all that deranged to you. > > Oh my, I have really gotten too long with this, and am wandering off > the topic as well. I think I had better quit now, before I get any > more off track than I already am. I hope I have managed to clarify a > few things, anyway. Your rambling does not address the fundamental destruction and attack on the Usenet voting system by Bahais who contemptuously are disregarding all advice on NO voting, advice from both other Bahais, as well as non-Bahais.... How do you explain that if it is not fanaticism? I have never done or said anything that justifies the overwhelming disregard for others' opinions that Bahais demonstrated in the NO vote and, indeed, consistently for the past TEN months.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:17 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) TK wrote: > > In article <345DBC88.5DCB@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > >900, nine hundred, NO votes have been threatened this > >time.... > > Excuse me for saying so, Fred, but this is a crock. The statement was given as > a conjecture, a plausible outcome, rather than a threat to defeat the newsgroup. > Stop using it as a threat - it really makes you seem overly paranoid. 900 -691 ------- 209 Paranoia is based on delusions. I have been lessoned by experience.... There is every good reason to believe Bahais will marshall another massive NO vote.... They've actually been doing it now for more than a month and a half on Bahai-discuss and elsewhere.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:26 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Sharon Bouchard wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 06:59:04 -0500, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >900, nine hundred, NO votes have been threatened this > >time.... The official institutions are partly to blame > >for it, in my opinion. They've allowed the fanaticism > >to develop unchecked.... Historically, when that happens, > >unpleasant consequences result.... > > Oh KNOCK IT OFF, Fred. > > One person made an innocent remark about what the likely outcome of > this would be, and you keep blowing it out of proportion and > pretending that it's something other than _vox populi_. It was not at all an innocent remark but a clear threat. That same individual has continued to post messages adamantly contemptuous of the Usenet voting system. With his permission, I have reposted several of his messages to news.groups.... Please see them under "talk.religion.bahai." I do not believe I'm "blowing it out of proportion" but informing others who are interested in an unmoderated newsgroup what some Bahais are secretly threatening to do on their private email lists.... Remember, talk.religion.bahai is not merely for Bahais, but for all people.... To call it vox populi obscures that reality and is an insult to the people who were deprive of participation by the last massive NO vote and may again find themselves suffering under the Bahai tyranny.... > > As for "the official institutions" in case you haven't noticed, the > House has spoken, and what they said made it clear they weren't going > to direct anyone to do anything, and we should vote our conscience, > whichever way that ends up. "Conscience" is not a proper motive for voting on a Usenet proposal.... You and other Bahais have no right to deprive other Bahais and non-Bahais a newsgroup unfettered by the zealous fanatics in the Faith.... > > I'm beginning to find it difficult to believe you seriously want to > see t.r.b. created. There will be 3rd proposal submitted, if necessary, six months to the day, the 2nd one is unjustly defeated by Bahai fanaticism.... > If you did, you would not be making such a great effort to do > everything possible to see that it fails. A tiresome Bahai strategy: Pretend I'm the problem.... > > As for fanaticism, I only see that coming from one poster in this > conference. Everyone else seems to have at least some grasp of > reasoned discourse. I would not call your discourse or that of many other Bahais "reasoned." The incessant disregard for the Usenet system of interest polling shows that.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:48 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: TRBahai Reply to Gloomy Analysis Please post this to news.groups if you would.... Things are going badly, Michael, I feel at the moment... The fanatics have really worked themselves up into a frenzy again. Anything you can find a moment to say on news.groups would be a big help.... Every time I open my mouth they tear me limb from limb.... A 2nd rfd will be posted today or tomorrow. McKenny Michael wrote: > > The Baha'i Studies List: > > Greetings from Ottawa. > If you are well, it is well. > I would like to say first that a post of mine pre-dating my > reading of the letter from the Universal House of Justice in which > the Universal House of Justice clearly expresses the adoption in > cyberspace of a general Baha'i policy of freedom of thought and > expression has been reposted to news.groups. I think the letter from > the Universal House of Justice has opened things up, and my gloomy > analysis is modified as a result. > However, this depends on the support the Universal House of > Justice receives from Baha'is. If those who had assumed that the > Universal House of Justice was opposed to the formation of > talk.religion.bahai look for subtext in this letter contradictory to > its literal meaning (for example, in my view, misinterpret a guidance > to avoid entering into debate, arguing perhaps, with Covenant Breakers, > as a coded indication that really the Universal House of Justice wants > talk.religion.bahai voted down to prevent the possibility of such > people, or anyone else, posting in an unmoderated newsgroup) and give > several hundred more NO votes to this proposal, the intent of the > Universal House of Justice to demonstrate a Baha'i policy fostering > the freedom of the individual to express personal opinion in > cyberspace will fail and you'll have cynical comments about PR. > Also, if those who had talked and thought a lot about the need for > things to open up within the Baha'i Faith fail to take advantage of > this opportunity what was the result of all this talk and thought? > This newsgroup in one of the big 8 hierarchies of USENET is the kind > of freedom you've been calling for. I've received assessments (and > not from Frederick Glaysher or anyone I've noticed posting to news. > groups) that are very distrustful and cynical of this letter, and > which include the opinion that TRB will be monitored by Baha'i > authorities and those saying what these authorities do not wish to > hear sanctioned. > In my opinion, such a mistrust of the literal meaning of the > letter is highly regretable. At the least, it would be amazing for > anyone to be sanctioned for voting YES and reading the new group. > Note that the point has been made on news.groups that the number of > people who voted YES last time round exceeded the number who > successfully approved fifteen newsgroups since then. The more of > you who support by your votes, even if you feel you can only read, > talk.religion.bahai the greater the opportunity for you to see > whether things are really as gloomy as you feel. > If you wish, just read quietly and post uncontrovertial views > and let someone else utter the controversial view you feel would get > you punished and see whether things are as bad as you dread. > In my view, this letter reflects a current policy from the > Universal House of Justice, and it would be completely contrary to > their considered ruling in favour of freedom of expression for them > to punish anyone for voting for and reading talk.religion.bahai and > even to censure you for expressing your opinion whatever it may be, > in a flame free manner. > And, perhaps it may assist you to overcome any trepidation to > consider the kind of PR that would occur if there were such a > newsgroup as Talk.religion.bahai so very publicly able to monitor > how Baha'i authorities follow these policies of the Universal House > of Justice on freedom of expression. > So, rather than despairing about the insincerity of this letter > vote your conscience, as the letter says, and give reality a chance > to dissipate your gloomy despair. > Fare very Well, > Michael > > This is also being posted to the Baha'i > lists: irfan, Bahai-st and talisman. > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > - > To switch to the digested list, > send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body > - > unsubscribe bahai-st > subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:02 PM To: Richard C. Detweiler Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB I haven't read your message. Please do not email me directly. Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Fred - what the HELL are you thinking? Here is someone telling you they > are willing to look at your proposal and even vote for it perhpas and > you treat her like the devil incarnate!! How in the world do you expect > to win this vote with this kind of rhetoric. Are you out of your mind? > > Look Fred - my yes vote is in the balance too here - I would really love > to vote for this proposal. Bluntly - if you want this to pass, let > Chris take the reigns and quiet yourself down. You were doing well > at the outset but this crap shoots yourself in the foot. It's crazy. > > Simmer down and act civil. You might be surprised how it works. > > Dick D. > > In article <345F36F9.3A3A@hotmail.com> you write: > >Roxana Morgan wrote: > >> > >> Russ Allbery wrote: > >> > >> > > In fact, no Baha'i Institution has directed any believer to vote in a > >> > > particular way. > >> > > >> > Yes, it has. It's simply done it in an extremely underhanded manner that > >> > befits the way these sorts of organizations usually conduct themselves. > >> > > >> > > "Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their > >> > > own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their > >> > > understanding of the principles of the Faith." (letter of Oct. 14 1997) > >> > > >> > Note the hidden implication here that if you make the wrong decision, you > >> > don't understand the principles of the Faith as well as you should or your > >> > conscience is flawed. > >> > > >> > >> No individual is perfect and therefore all of our understandings have > >> flaws. It sufficeth to follow our own conscience. My understanding of > >> Baha'i teachings is that a wrong decision is not seen as the end of the > >> world if done with good intentions. The consequences will be suffered > >> and learning will result. The purpose of this life is learning and > >> acquiring virtues. > >> Nowhere in the letter from which the above quotation is taken is there > >> the slightest hint as to which decision is correct. Therefore, no > >> hidden implication exists. The highest Institution of the Baha'i Faith > >> has told individual Baha'is to rely on their own understading and make > >> their own decision! > > > >Is the UHJ asking Bahais to flaunt the rules for Usenet voting? > >I don't think so.... Conscience, in terms of stuffing the ballot box, > >is not applicable in this context. You and other, I believe, are > >misreading the message in order to feed into your own fanatical > >interpretations and motives.... To ignore the consultation on > >news.groups regarding proper voting procedure on Usenet is a misuse > >of your conscience and faculties. > > > >> In fact, normally, within Baha'i communities the spirit with which one > >> undertakes to formulate a plan or reach a decision is more important > >> than the outcome. You can, for example, undertake to build the most > >> beautiful Temple on earth but if in the process you are the source of > >> irreperable disunity or estrangement between people, then your work has > >> not borne good fruit and is unacceptable. > > > >The people creating "disunity or estrangement between people" are very > >much the fundamentalist Bahais who misguidedly depriving others of the > >right to discuss the Bahai Faith without the interference of individuals > >who believe they have the sole truth in regard to everything.... > > > >Our Writings tell us that if > >> two people 'fight' and create contention over religion, then, neither is > >> correct regardless of the ideas expressed. > > > >A very convenient notion for those who wish to wield tyranny over > >others.... I believe you misuse this principle from the Writings. > > > >This is because the 'Spirit > >> in action' is more important than words or enterprises. > >> In this situation I believe that a Baha'i that wishes to vote should > >> become fully acquainted with the proposal, the methods and rules of > >> group formation, and with disregard to the personalities involved in > >> debate, meditate on the matter and place their votes according to the > >> dictates of their conscience. > > > >You're constant echoing of "conscience," to my mind, shows you > >have none.... And are intending to abuse the usual unwritten > >"constitution," if you will, similar to the unwritten British > >Bill of Rights and Constitution, I argue..... > > > >If by my statement, I still am > >> demonstrating a lack of understanding for the rules regarding the > >> formation of newsgroups and the above process is not acceptable, please > >> educate me further. > > > >Education requires willingness on the part of the student to > >learn.... I seriously doubt the sincerity of you and other Bahais > >on Bahai-discuss.... Your tone is more that of one who has found > >a specious method of circumventing the rules and is now flaunting > >it.... > > > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Roxana Morgan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:04 PM To: roxanamorgan11@home.com Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB I haven't read your message. Please do not email me directly. Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Dear Frederick: > > Why on earth do you assume so much about me and even categorize me as > well. I have never met you or had dealings with you before. I spoke > from my heart, sincerely. I am very sorry that you do not believe me. > I am barely used to using this medium. I am a technically and in many > other respects ignorant person (as in some degree we all are, I > suspect). I do not have nor wish to acquire the sophistication of > deception that you attribute to me. I am willing to learn the 'valid' > reasons for casting a vote. I suspect that currently many of my reasons > for wanting to vote 'yes' for an unmoderated group do not fit the voting > requirements. But I am not certain. > > Sincerely, > Roxana Morgan > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roxana Morgan wrote: > > > > > > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > > > > > In fact, no Baha'i Institution has directed any believer to vote in a > > > > > particular way. > > > > > > > > Yes, it has. It's simply done it in an extremely underhanded manner that > > > > befits the way these sorts of organizations usually conduct themselves. > > > > > > > > > "Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their > > > > > own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their > > > > > understanding of the principles of the Faith." (letter of Oct. 14 1997) > > > > > > > > Note the hidden implication here that if you make the wrong decision, you > > > > don't understand the principles of the Faith as well as you should or your > > > > conscience is flawed. > > > > > > > > > > No individual is perfect and therefore all of our understandings have > > > flaws. It sufficeth to follow our own conscience. My understanding of > > > Baha'i teachings is that a wrong decision is not seen as the end of the > > > world if done with good intentions. The consequences will be suffered > > > and learning will result. The purpose of this life is learning and > > > acquiring virtues. > > > Nowhere in the letter from which the above quotation is taken is there > > > the slightest hint as to which decision is correct. Therefore, no > > > hidden implication exists. The highest Institution of the Baha'i Faith > > > has told individual Baha'is to rely on their own understading and make > > > their own decision! > > > > Is the UHJ asking Bahais to flaunt the rules for Usenet voting? > > I don't think so.... Conscience, in terms of stuffing the ballot box, > > is not applicable in this context. You and other, I believe, are > > misreading the message in order to feed into your own fanatical > > interpretations and motives.... To ignore the consultation on > > news.groups regarding proper voting procedure on Usenet is a misuse > > of your conscience and faculties. > > > > > In fact, normally, within Baha'i communities the spirit with which one > > > undertakes to formulate a plan or reach a decision is more important > > > than the outcome. You can, for example, undertake to build the most > > > beautiful Temple on earth but if in the process you are the source of > > > irreperable disunity or estrangement between people, then your work has > > > not borne good fruit and is unacceptable. > > > > The people creating "disunity or estrangement between people" are very > > much the fundamentalist Bahais who misguidedly depriving others of the > > right to discuss the Bahai Faith without the interference of individuals > > who believe they have the sole truth in regard to everything.... > > > > Our Writings tell us that if > > > two people 'fight' and create contention over religion, then, neither is > > > correct regardless of the ideas expressed. > > > > A very convenient notion for those who wish to wield tyranny over > > others.... I believe you misuse this principle from the Writings. > > > > This is because the 'Spirit > > > in action' is more important than words or enterprises. > > > In this situation I believe that a Baha'i that wishes to vote should > > > become fully acquainted with the proposal, the methods and rules of > > > group formation, and with disregard to the personalities involved in > > > debate, meditate on the matter and place their votes according to the > > > dictates of their conscience. > > > > You're constant echoing of "conscience," to my mind, shows you > > have none.... And are intending to abuse the usual unwritten > > "constitution," if you will, similar to the unwritten British > > Bill of Rights and Constitution, I argue..... > > > > If by my statement, I still am > > > demonstrating a lack of understanding for the rules regarding the > > > formation of newsgroups and the above process is not acceptable, please > > > educate me further. > > > > Education requires willingness on the part of the student to > > learn.... I seriously doubt the sincerity of you and other Bahais > > on Bahai-discuss.... Your tone is more that of one who has found > > a specious method of circumventing the rules and is now flaunting > > it.... > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Roxana Morgan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:08 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Notarius wrote: > > Roger wrote: > >Technical problems which have caused submissions to be lost have > >occurred in the past. An alternate means of submitting to > >soc.religion.bahai is to use the address . This > >is a more reliable means of submission than posting via the newsgroup, > >IMHO. > > If I had known, thats what I would have done. Thanks for telling me. > But it is still a problem. The impression is that the usenet newsgroup s.r.b. > is only attached to a more important list and that you need inside information > to post to it. > We will never know how many posts were lost. It is rather serious. > I think it speaks in favour of t.r.b., which will be a dedicated usenet > newsgroup. The "technical" problem has never been established beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my opinion.... > > notarius ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:14 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: A.R.B. posting by author/subject Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > The following is an ordered list of all authors [subjects] from April through Oct. > 22 on alt.religion.bahai. Note that several individuals appear more than > once because they have posted from different addresses. > Anyone care enough to count all of these up? I think that's what the query was asking.... That is, for a total number.... It's a lot of traffic whatever it is..... Dejanews.com, for instance, lists today 3,649 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:21 PM Subject: 2nd RFD finished and soon to be posted Chris Manvell and I have perhaps finished revising the 2nd RFD and he should be posting it today to news.announce.newgroups. I believe we must observe a minimum of 10 days discussing the new RFD before calling for the vote (CFV). Is it permissible to go another 21 days? I doubt most people would actually want to, but just in case, I raise the question.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:26 PM Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Roger Reini wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:17:24 GMT, hkt@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) > wrote: > > > > >Then I would suggest that all True Baha'is remove themselves from > >this discussion on grounds that they may come into contact with some > >Covenant-breakers. I would also suggest that they avoid voting on this > >proposal. A YES vote might be construed as giving aid and comfort > >to Covenant-breakers, and a NO vote might be construed as something > >akin to burning books. > > IMHO, this is an overreaction. And, in light of the guidance issued > by the Supreme Institution of the Baha'i Faith, it is not necessary. Though nobody can agree on what the guidance is.... I don't accept the reading given to it by Bahai-discuss Bahais.... It's beginning to look a lot like.... not Christmas, but a Buddhist koan.... > If we Baha'is were to stay out of discussions because we might come > into contact with Covenant breakers, then we would have to avoid using > Usenet altogether. We have NOT been advised to do this. We've just > been reminded to avoid engaging CB's. And that's easy to do -- I just > put them in my killfile. Now, Roger, do you think this is going to persuade Henrietta Thomas and others....? > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:32 PM To: Richard C. Detweiler Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: alt.r.bahai traffic data Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <345F3476.111F@hotmail.com>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >Mr. Detweiler, would you be willing to post a total count of each? > > > > Mea culpa. I thought I had posted these to alt.religion.bahai and put a > pointer here. However, in checking a.r.b. this morning, I didn't see > them. So, I'll follow this with both lists. They're big - sorry for > the size before hand. I think what the person was asking for is a total count versus the long list: How many individuals have posted to arb on how many subjects? > > Dick D. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:53 PM Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <345ADB11.79B3B157@usq.edu.au>, Ron House wrote: > >And that only leaves one thing: the thing I said at the > >outset: the campaign conducted by the Baha'is was done > >because they feared that people would hear the message of > >the covenant breakers. > > > > Ron, > > I can appreciate the time and energy you put into this. You have stated > what others have also acknowledged during the whole affair last time. > As one who was involved, I can tell you that I basically agree with you. > Mark Towfiq - a well respected member of the Baha'i online community - > took it upon himself to broadcast an appeal for no votes. This appeal, > in my opinion, accounted for a large portion of the NO votes. This is the first word of truth I've read about Mark Towfiq's NO vote campaign in over 7, that's seven, months.... Whether > it was enough to cause the defeat of the proposal or whether there were > enough legitimate no votes - 58 were necessary - to defeat it in any case > will never be known. I only hope that this time will see a much fairer > rendering of true interest. Mark Towfiq's attack was posted on Bahai-discuss, Bahai-teachers, and Bahai-announce. Every indication so far, on Bahai-dsicsuss especially, is that it may very well be even worse. One individual on Bahai-discuss has threatened, I say it as a historically fact, 900 NO votes, only 209 more than were cast before.... Mark Towfiq himself does appear to be a member of the BCCA, which explains a lot to my mind.... > But what I want to address is the broad brush with which you paint the > whole of the international Baha'i community. I was very involved the > first time around. In fact, within minutes of seeing Mark T.'s appeal, > I forwarded it to the vote taker for their action. I then went on the > lists which he posted his appeal to and strongly objected to his > electioneering. I also wrote Mark and the BCCA telling them what > I thought. I wrote the BCCA recently when I was personally threatened by a Bahai on Bahai-discuss. They wrote back blaming me and did not nothing for more than a month in a message that obliquely blamed me for her vehement, fanatical attack.... My wife, after reading it, was geniunely afraid for the life and well-being of all of our family.... But it's okay, it's for Baha'u'llah.... I and several others spent many days informing these > people and the lists that the appeal should be ignored. All to little > effect as the vote showed. In all of my contact with members of Baha'i > Auxiliary Boards and Councillors, none - not one - endorsed Mark's > actions. Which, if true, doesn't say much for the ability of the institutions to reign in fanaticism when it appears.... A frightening spectacle in my opinion.... > > IMO, Mark used his influence as a known and respected individual in the > Baha'i community to buy the massive no vote last time. With the guidance > from the House of Justice which is now available to Baha'is I hope we > don't see the same blind obedience to an individual's opinion that we saw > last time. People are already CITING the message as proof that they may IGNORE the rules of Usenet and deprive other Bahais and non-Bahais an unmoderated newsgroup.... We shall see. In any case, I believe you are right in the > main about the effect of the appeal for no votes. However, I have seen no > such appeal as of yet and if I did, I and others would immediately > counter it. The atmosphere's the same on BAhai-discuss, and wherever the proposal is being discussed. It should be noted that soc.religion.bahai has again used its dictatorial control to squelch all discussion of the proposal there.... I guess what I am trying to say is the behavior we saw last > time WAS misguided on the part of those soliciting no votes and on those > voters who obviously voted blindly without a real interest in Usenet. > It is not indicative of any authorized or coordinated effort on the part > of any Baha'i institution. I'm not so sure I believe that anymore.... Indeed if it was, it would be a big test of > faith for me. It is a big test of faith for me, one I may not pass.... >It is simply not the Baha'i way. In all honesty, I must say, I believe it is "the Bahai way...." It certainly seems that way.... >And the guidence from > the House has borne this out, IMO. That's the way I read its guidance too.... But no one else seems to on Bahai-discuss and elsewhere.... Indeed, the fanaticism appears much worse and even more closed off to reasoning about how voting should procede on Usenet.... > > Thanks again for your work, > > Dick D. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 3:13 PM Subject: Re: TRB RFD: Fred - are you out of your mind?!?! Richard C. Detweiler wrote: I'm sorry Mr. Detweiler that my request this morning that you stop emailing me constantly in private has hurt your feelings.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 3:26 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Kathy Pascoe wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Sharon Bouchard wrote: > > > > > > As for "the official institutions" in case you haven't noticed, the > > > House has spoken, and what they said made it clear they weren't > > > going to direct anyone to do anything, and we should vote our > > > conscience, whichever way that ends up. > > > > "Conscience" is not a proper motive for voting on a Usenet > > proposal.... You and other Bahais have no right to deprive > > other Bahais and non-Bahais a newsgroup unfettered by the > > zealous fanatics in the Faith.... > > Mr. Glaysher, you seem to be missing the point that a goodly number of > Baha'is might conclude that voting their conscience meant voting YES or > ABSTAIN -- *if you could stop insulting them long enough to listen*. You raise serious criticism and permit me to give you a serious answer. I know of no other way of explaining what has occurred.... if not, fanaticism.... I am not alone in perceiving it as such. I'm sorry if you don't like the word. How else would you explain the phenomenon? > > > I'm beginning to find it difficult to believe you seriously want to > > > see t.r.b. created. > ... > > > If you did, you would not be making such a great effort to do > > > everything possible to see that it fails. > > > > A tiresome Bahai strategy: Pretend I'm the problem.... > > I have concluded that your behavior (not you personally) is certainly > part of the problem, both the last time and now. And I'm not Baha'i. I hear and respect your opinion. All attempts, since January 17, 1997, to explain that voting NO for political reasons is not nice has failed to result in understanding by many, many Bahais.... I often feel like someone beset by a mob in Israel or Iran.... Forgive me for calling it one.... What else can I do? > > > > As for fanaticism, I only see that coming from one poster in this > > > conference. Everyone else seems to have at least some grasp of > > > reasoned discourse. > > > > I would not call your discourse or that of many other Bahais > > "reasoned." The incessant disregard for the Usenet system > > of interest polling shows that.... > > Please leave off the insults, paranoia and ranting. You do your > proposal no good. I don't see the above as an insult nor did I nor do I intend it as such. Bahais have heard for 10, TEN, months the rules of Usenet voting and still choose political NO voting. That seems unreasonable to me. Sorry if it hurts anyone's feelings. What of the feelings of those denied a voice? What of the damage done to the Usenet as whole when the voting system is trashed beyond repair by every group of incensed partisans that happens along? What about the body at the bottom of the pile.... My language above is not so horrible and offensive as to justify the crime.... A mere excuse, in my opinion. > -- > Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 3:48 PM To: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: pointers I'm assuming you're subscribed to all of the Bahai lists. If not, let me know, and I'll post to them. Today's 16 days since the 1st posting. The second should really go into today if you can find the time. Let me know you've received it and have posted it or what you think. I'll be worrying till I hear from you. If I don't hear from you by tomorrow, I'll post it myself. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 5:09 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD finished and soon to be posted Jon Bell wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >I believe we must observe a minimum of 10 days discussing > >the new RFD before calling for the vote (CFV). Is it > >permissible to go another 21 days? > > Sure. In fact, you can wait up to 60 days before the CFV. After 60 days, > you have to post another RFD (and then wait at least 10 days) before > posting a CFV. These rules are not explicitly stated in the "Guidelines", > but they're in the UVV status reports. Thanks, yeah, I've read UVV daily status reports and the CFV Questionnaire, which is complicated as can be. Just hoping to INTERPRET in all correctly! > > -- > Jon Bell Presbyterian College > Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA > [for beginner's Usenet info, see https://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/ ] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 7:24 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Finished RFD FRED. I HOPE THIS GET THROUGH TO YOU. MY IAP SEEMS TO BE HAVING MAIL PROBLEMS. I WILL KEEP TRYING DIALING IN AS I SEE I HAVE 20 MESSAGES WAITING FOR ME. CHRIS. In message <345F62FE.5864@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Your wordprocessor or whatever, as on your webpage, extends >the lines too far for David Lawrence to format and post it >correctly. He uses some kind of auto-posting system that >requires short lines.... Just copy this as is, unless you >have an objection to something, and post it to him right >away from your address. He'll repost it to all of the >newsgroups and list receiving a full RFD. Once he confirms >with you that he's posted the RFD, you're then free to >post the pointers, which he won't do.... I'll watch for >all of them and confirm them for you as they reach this >side of the pond.... Web pages are self formatting depending on the screen width of the reader (as every paragraph is a continuous text) so the lines can be as long as you wish to make them. Obviously, that causes problems when you are working to a fixed line length. Also my e-text edit works with fairly long lines (though the RFD you posted back still has the odd word shifted to the next line!). Anyway, it is not important -- what you sent to Dave will have been correct. >You post to David Lawrence, of course, by just posting >the message/RFD to news.announce.newgroups He'll do >the rest. I will post the change below to Dave with a rider that you can over-ride it if you wish to do so. After that, it is set in concrete as far as I am concerned. I hope you do not object to the change. >I've left all your changes alone except I've added: >"Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure >in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation." I'm >not willing to cut that idea.... Using Henrietta's text for >"Bahai standards" is fine with me.... That's fine. >Sorry for the problems.... You'll be able to reach me for the >next three or four hours if needed. Amend "been rejected" to read "not been accepted". The logic is the same but the tenor of the paragraph is shifted round. >Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. Don't worry about all the posts. I have had system crashes (the last was when I tried upgrading to Windows 95) and know what it is like. All the best. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 8:15 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: TRBahai Reply to Gloomy Analysis Will try within 12 hours. Sorry for extreme busyness. Best. > >Please post this to news.groups if you would.... Things are going >badly, Michael, I feel at the moment... The fanatics have really >worked themselves up into a frenzy again. Anything you can find >a moment to say on news.groups would be a big help.... Every >time I open my mouth they tear me limb from limb.... > >A 2nd rfd will be posted today or tomorrow. > > >McKenny Michael wrote: >> >> The Baha'i Studies List: >> >> Greetings from Ottawa. >> If you are well, it is well. >> I would like to say first that a post of mine pre-dating my >> reading of the letter from the Universal House of Justice in which >> the Universal House of Justice clearly expresses the adoption in >> cyberspace of a general Baha'i policy of freedom of thought and >> expression has been reposted to news.groups. I think the letter from >> the Universal House of Justice has opened things up, and my gloomy >> analysis is modified as a result. >> However, this depends on the support the Universal House of >> Justice receives from Baha'is. If those who had assumed that the >> Universal House of Justice was opposed to the formation of >> talk.religion.bahai look for subtext in this letter contradictory to >> its literal meaning (for example, in my view, misinterpret a guidance >> to avoid entering into debate, arguing perhaps, with Covenant Breakers, >> as a coded indication that really the Universal House of Justice wants >> talk.religion.bahai voted down to prevent the possibility of such >> people, or anyone else, posting in an unmoderated newsgroup) and give >> several hundred more NO votes to this proposal, the intent of the >> Universal House of Justice to demonstrate a Baha'i policy fostering >> the freedom of the individual to express personal opinion in >> cyberspace will fail and you'll have cynical comments about PR. >> Also, if those who had talked and thought a lot about the need for >> things to open up within the Baha'i Faith fail to take advantage of >> this opportunity what was the result of all this talk and thought? >> This newsgroup in one of the big 8 hierarchies of USENET is the kind >> of freedom you've been calling for. I've received assessments (and >> not from Frederick Glaysher or anyone I've noticed posting to news. >> groups) that are very distrustful and cynical of this letter, and >> which include the opinion that TRB will be monitored by Baha'i >> authorities and those saying what these authorities do not wish to >> hear sanctioned. >> In my opinion, such a mistrust of the literal meaning of the >> letter is highly regretable. At the least, it would be amazing for >> anyone to be sanctioned for voting YES and reading the new group. >> Note that the point has been made on news.groups that the number of >> people who voted YES last time round exceeded the number who >> successfully approved fifteen newsgroups since then. The more of >> you who support by your votes, even if you feel you can only read, >> talk.religion.bahai the greater the opportunity for you to see >> whether things are really as gloomy as you feel. >> If you wish, just read quietly and post uncontrovertial views >> and let someone else utter the controversial view you feel would get >> you punished and see whether things are as bad as you dread. >> In my view, this letter reflects a current policy from the >> Universal House of Justice, and it would be completely contrary to >> their considered ruling in favour of freedom of expression for them >> to punish anyone for voting for and reading talk.religion.bahai and >> even to censure you for expressing your opinion whatever it may be, >> in a flame free manner. >> And, perhaps it may assist you to overcome any trepidation to >> consider the kind of PR that would occur if there were such a >> newsgroup as Talk.religion.bahai so very publicly able to monitor >> how Baha'i authorities follow these policies of the Universal House >> of Justice on freedom of expression. >> So, rather than despairing about the insincerity of this letter >> vote your conscience, as the letter says, and give reality a chance >> to dissipate your gloomy despair. >> Fare very Well, >> Michael >> >> This is also being posted to the Baha'i >> lists: irfan, Bahai-st and talisman. >> >> -- >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> >> - >> To switch to the digested list, >> send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body >> - >> unsubscribe bahai-st >> subscribe bahai-st-digest > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 12:29 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Sharon Bouchard wrote: > > Not like you asked me, but I would urge any interested party to vote > > their conscience. > > "Conscience" is not a proper category in terms of Usenet > interest polling.... The UHJ may very well fail to understand > the nature of the accepted reasons for voting.... You and > other Bahais, I believe, are misreading the UHJ's message > to suit your own designs.... I get where you're coming from, Fred, but please be careful before you tell specific individuals why they're doing what they're doing. Sharon argued very forcefully, but I didn't see any evidence that she was other than sincere. In fact, I have heard said that she's changing her mind. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture! -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 8:40 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD finished and soon to be posted Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <345F678C.75F3@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >I believe we must observe a minimum of 10 days discussing > >the new RFD before calling for the vote (CFV). Is it > >permissible to go another 21 days? I doubt most people > >would actually want to, but just in case, I raise the > >question.... > > Hmmmmmm. The discussion seems to be going more your way every day, > so I would advise at least 21 to garner more support. You be the > judge of when that support peaks, and it's CFV time. Yes. More time seems best at the moment. Someone was just saying as long as 60 days is permissible. I'm thinking 30 to 60 right now.... The discussion period may have been too short last time. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 8:50 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Ron House wrote: > Again, that is where I imagine Fred is coming from. > There's only so much humbug a sincere and sensitive > soul can put up with before telling the perpetrators of > the humbug to jump in a peat bog. As they say, ya got me! -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:02 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Finished RFD Chris Manvell wrote: > > FRED. I HOPE THIS GET THROUGH TO YOU. MY IAP SEEMS TO BE HAVING MAIL > PROBLEMS. I WILL KEEP TRYING DIALING IN AS I SEE I HAVE 20 MESSAGES > WAITING FOR ME. > > CHRIS. > > In message <345F62FE.5864@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >Your wordprocessor or whatever, as on your webpage, extends > >the lines too far for David Lawrence to format and post it > >correctly. He uses some kind of auto-posting system that > >requires short lines.... Just copy this as is, unless you > >have an objection to something, and post it to him right > >away from your address. He'll repost it to all of the > >newsgroups and list receiving a full RFD. Once he confirms > >with you that he's posted the RFD, you're then free to > >post the pointers, which he won't do.... I'll watch for > >all of them and confirm them for you as they reach this > >side of the pond.... > > Web pages are self formatting depending on the screen width of the > reader (as every paragraph is a continuous text) so the lines can be as > long as you wish to make them. Obviously, that causes problems when you > are working to a fixed line length. Also my e-text edit works with > fairly long lines (though the RFD you posted back still has the odd word > shifted to the next line!). Anyway, it is not important -- what you > sent to Dave will have been correct. The line length has to be 78 columns or less with no hidden spaces anywhere, especially the end of lines. A pain and nuisance. > > >You post to David Lawrence, of course, by just posting > >the message/RFD to news.announce.newgroups He'll do > >the rest. > > I will post the change below to Dave with a rider that you can over-ride > it if you wish to do so. After that, it is set in concrete as far as I > am concerned. I hope you do not object to the change. Don't waste his time with such a rider. It will make him mad and he'll just ignore it anyway and post. The guy's overwhelmed. I do object to the change about rejections from srb. I want it to stay as is. > > >I've left all your changes alone except I've added: > >"Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure > >in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation." I'm > >not willing to cut that idea.... Using Henrietta's text for > >"Bahai standards" is fine with me.... > > That's fine. > > >Sorry for the problems.... You'll be able to reach me for the > >next three or four hours if needed. > > Amend "been rejected" to read "not been accepted". The logic is the > same but the tenor of the paragraph is shifted round. I prefer the former and won't go with the latter.... > > >Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > >soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > Don't worry about all the posts. I have had system crashes (the last > was when I tried upgrading to Windows 95) and know what it is like. > > All the best. > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:07 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: I will post RFD right now Chris Manvell wrote: > > In message <345F483A.4F7@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >Just realized you put it up on your website! > > > >I'll get to work on it! > > Sorry Fred, I was at a Feast last night and did not get home til about > 11pm. My ISP had a fault that menat that none of my e-mails were > downloaded until 1.00 am (just I was keeling over and needed to go to > bed). > > Have you posted the RFD? The reason I ask is that you seem to have > picked up the original one off my web site and not RFD2.HTM so that > several changes have not been incorporated (the most obvious being the > use of lower case "f" in Baha'i Faith. I'm posting it in just a few minutes. I'm pretty sure I got rfd2, that's what I put in for the address....and it had changes to it.... I'm not worried about the f.... I'll check though and correct it for you.... Since I'm posting to David Lawrence, you shouldn't send him the RFD. It would be redundant. Wait till you see it on news.announce.newgroups or I email you again before posting the pointers. Thanks for your help. > > I downloaded first thing this morning but no sign of the RFD on N.A.NG. > I have to get the kids up now and get them off to school so will not be > able to anything until about 5pm GMT this evening (that will be about > midday to you). So -- > > Please let me know if you have posted the RFD to Dave. If not, please > get the RFD from https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd2.htm. (the 2 is > important, otherwise you will pick up the original RFD. You can then > add the bit about Netiquette. You will need to change the followinf > sentence to start "Also...." for it to read well. > > Please let me know the situation and I will then act on the pointers as > soon as I see the RFD appear on N.A.NG. > > I am subscribed to Talisman, Bahai-Studies, Bahai-Announce, Bahai- > Discuss and Mashriq. I am not subscribed to h-bahai -- maybe I should > be anyway. > > Yours in considerable haste, (and with sig anticipating the event), > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:15 AM Cc: contact@uvv.org; Chris@baha.demon.co.uk; cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu Subject: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr. Lawrence: The only major change on this 2nd RFD is a second proponent has climbed aboard: Chris Manvell. Several other very minor things. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ---------- 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. 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. 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is almost exclusively for unmoderated groups. 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. 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. 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. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponents: Frederick Glaysher Chris Manvell ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:15 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [auto-reply] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:17 AM Subject: 2nd RFD sent in The 2nd RFD has just been sent in to David Lawrence and the UVV. It should be posted before long unless there's a problem. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 3:35 PM Subject: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Ron House wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > > > > Mark Towfiq's attack was posted on Bahai-discuss, Bahai-teachers, > > and Bahai-announce. Every indication so far, on Bahai-dsicsuss > > especially, is that it may very well be even worse. One individual > > on Bahai-discuss has threatened, I say it as a historically fact, > > 900 NO votes, only 209 more than were cast before.... Mark Towfiq > > himself does appear to be a member of the BCCA, which explains > > a lot to my mind.... > > I saw that "900" post and I must say I can't agre with this > interpretation of it. From memory, it said if the UHJ says > vote yes you'll get 900 yes votes and if they say vote no > you'll get 900 no votes. No way is that a threat of any kind, > it was a hypothetical statement, and as the UHJ has actually > said people can vote according to their conscience, the > hypothetical is contrafactual, and may to all intents and > purposes be ignored. The author has given me permission to repost his messages here. If I can find it, I'll do so.... > > I and several others spent many days informing these > > > people and the lists that the appeal should be ignored. All to little > > > effect as the vote showed. In all of my contact with members of Baha'i > > > Auxiliary Boards and Councillors, none - not one - endorsed Mark's > > > actions. > > Exactly. The Baha'i institutions have behaved with much > more dignity, propriety and sense than the believers did > in the previous vote. I'll bet,though, the UHJ is positively > sweating on this NG being PASSED, for, among other reasons, > this has become the biggest public relations debacle I've > ever seen for the Faith since I joined in 1972, and as long > as this gets voted down, it'll repeat every six months. > > > Which, if true, doesn't say much for the ability of the institutions > > to reign in fanaticism when it appears.... A frightening spectacle > > in my opinion.... > > Some truth, just a bit. IMHO, the institutions sometimes > lean towards whatever goes for a quiet life instead of > sticking up for principle to the nth degree. Take their > recent advice: they say Baha'is can vote according to > their consciences, so clearly nothing about TRB violates > Baha'i principles. So why not say so directly? Good question. What's your answer? As for > their 'ability', I think we must be fair: the whirlwind > of the no campaign would have swept round the world before > they had time to do anything. I'm not sure I follow you.... > > > The atmosphere's the same on BAhai-discuss, and wherever > > the proposal is being discussed. It should be noted that > > soc.religion.bahai has again used its dictatorial control > > to squelch all discussion of the proposal there.... > > I don't read thise lists, sso I can't comment. If anything > is being done there, why not repost examples here? You can subscribe to them if you're a Bahai. The address is in the RFD. > > > > It is not indicative of any authorized or coordinated effort on the part > > > of any Baha'i institution. > > > > I'm not so sure I believe that anymore.... > > I do. I know a lot of faults about the Baha'i faith, but > underhand machinations by the institutions is not one of them. Alas, they're composed of human beings.... The NSA of Iceland voted NO last time.... And two presently sitting members of other NSAs.... > Not to say that some Local Spiritual Assembly in some > one horse town might not have got involved, but of all > the institutional structures on earth, I would say > that the Baha'i institutions on the whole are remarkably > free of corruption. Compared to what? China? USSR? Iraq? Or the evil USA, whore of the decadent West? The last NO vote did not persuade me that the Bahai institutions are "free of corruption." Every shameful tactic imaginable was used to defeat the proposal. The administration tacitly condoned it, or at the least stood by and did nothing. It seems to me much the same is happening this time.... I would certainly trust the UHJ to > speak the absolute truth. If their public word is to > use your conscience, then they won't tell anyone > otherwise in secret. I hope you're right.... Or is "conscience" now converted into a code word? I asked the UHJ on March 31, 1997 if Bahai censorship is acceptable practice and for the Bahais texts that justify it. They've yet to answer my public request, though they responded to Roger Reini's in just a few weeks.... > > -- > Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because > people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 3:54 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Let's be pragmatic, Fred) Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > My frustration has always been that Fred continually works in a way to > deny him what he says he wants. [clip > My honest opinion is that if Fred is sincere in wanting this group to > pass, he needs to be quiet on this newsgroup and the e-mail lists for the > duration. Let Chris, Roger, you, and the others who want to see this > created reach the Baha'is in a positive manner. My honest opinion is that this is tantamount to the same tactics of censorship and character assassination you and soc.religion.bahai used last time.... I can only conclude that it really hurt your feelings that I didn't just accept your censoring but have fought it.... There's a long story here you're not telling people who have just tuned in.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 4:00 PM Subject: 3,701 3,701 messages have been posted as of today on www.dejanews.com to alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: cstone[SMTP:cstone@matrix.ru] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 9:29 PM To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai It is OK by me. Can you submit it yourself to Tale. I am in Russia and have still not straightened out the kinks in ISP access. Use my cstone@math.unm.edu address in the text, please, nothing else. ---------- > Ị̂: Frederick Glaysher > Êî́ó: no To-header on input > Êîïèÿ: contact@uvv.org; Chris@baha.demon.co.uk; cbstone@phoenix.Princeton.EDU > ̉ǻà: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Äạ̀à: 5 íîÿáđÿ 1997 ă. 16:15 > > Dear Mr. Lawrence: > The only major change on this 2nd RFD is a second proponent > has climbed aboard: Chris Manvell. Several other very minor > things. > > Thanks. > > Frederick Glaysher > FG@hotmail.com > > ---------- > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted > practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* > hierarchy, which is almost exclusively for unmoderated groups. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. Crossposting to irrelevant > groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect > followups to reduce excessive crossposting. > > Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > END CHARTER. > > PROCEDURE: > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > questions about the process. > > DISTRIBUTION: > > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, > alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, > soc.culture.israel > > and the following three mailing lists: > > Talisman > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Bahai Studies > Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu > Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu > > Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, > talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, > alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, > uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, > uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, > soc.rights.human > > and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: > Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org > > Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) > Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) > Baha'i Singles (Singles) > Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) > Baha'i Women Converse (Women) > Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) > Baha'i Announce (Announce) > > Mentor: > Chris Stone > > Proponents: > Frederick Glaysher > Chris Manvell ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 4:51 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: I will post RFD right now In message <34606F8C.4C8A@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I'm posting it in just a few minutes. I'm pretty sure I got rfd2, >that's what I put in for the address....and it had changes to it.... >I'm not worried about the f.... I'll check though and correct it >for you.... Another long day with everything going wrong -- except that the e-mail got through. Last time the RFD was posted I did not see it for quite a while so as soon as you see it posted somewhere, let me know. I shall up date the web site at the same time as I posts this. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 6:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: posted "2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai" [ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] On 5 Nov 1997 (Wed), at 22:55:39 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.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel It was also sent separately to the following group, for which another moderator must approve it: soc.religion.bahai It was also sent separately to the following lists: talisman@umich.edu bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 8:36 AM To: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: RFD posted It should show up faster this time. They had some kind of technical problem on the last RFD. You'll take care of all of the pointers, right? I'll watch for them on the newsgroups and lists and confirm they're getting through for you. Subject: posted "2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:55:44 -0500 (EST) From: newgroups-request@isc.org (David C Lawrence) To: Frederick Glaysher [ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] On 5 Nov 1997 (Wed), at 22:55:39 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.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel It was also sent separately to the following group, for which another moderator must approve it: soc.religion.bahai It was also sent separately to the following lists: talisman@umich.edu bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 8:40 AM To: cstone Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai cstone wrote: > > It is OK by me. Can you submit it yourself to Tale. I am in Russia and > have still not straightened out the kinks in ISP access. Use my > cstone@math.unm.edu address in the text, please, nothing else. > Sorry, Tale just posted it.... You had told me to use the Princeton address before so it never occurred to me you want that in the RFD. Hope it isn't a serious problem for you. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 8:46 AM Subject: Re: May we Discuss these Proposals Elsewhere? Russ Allbery wrote: > > In news.groups, Rick Schaut writes: > > > I believe that's half the answer. One interpretation is that these > > guidelines preclude "off-line" discussions (i.e. discussions outside any > > newsgroup), though there seems to be very few who agree with this > > interpretation. > > It goes to what the point of the discussion is. Obviously, people are > going to talk about a proposal in person, in e-mail, and wherever else. > It's just that their opinions aren't going to have much weight, nor can > they expect to provoke changes in the proposal, unless they voice them in > public and crosspost them at the least to news.groups. Why have Bahais ignored this comment? > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 8:57 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD sent in Russ Allbery wrote: > > In news.groups, Frederick Glaysher writes: > > > The 2nd RFD has just been sent in to David Lawrence and the UVV. It > > should be posted before long unless there's a problem. > > For future reference, you don't really need to send it to the UVV since > they can't do much with it. :) Okay. I was just worried that they'd be looking for the Questionnaire for the first RFD, so I thought I'd let them know a 2nd one was posted. If there's a 3rd, I'll be sure not to bother them. > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 8:59 AM Subject: 2nd RFD posted Tale posted the 2nd RFD for talk.religion.bahai on November 5, 1997 on news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere as listed in the RFD. Don't see it here on news.groups though this morning.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 9:30 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) > > Kathy Pascoe wrote: You may find that > the voting result is substantially different than the travesty you > appear to be anticipating. Given ten months of experience, I believe it would be foolish of me to expect anything else.... though nothing would make me happier.... What and where is the EVIDENCE that the travesty shan't continue? I have't seen any yet.... One of the major tactics used by soc.religion.bahai and others has always been to smear the character of anyone who doesn't buckle under, accept their censorship, and crawl away.... Sound familiar? No offense, but you're coming rather late to this discussion. Read www.dejanews.com for the EVIDENCE from January 17, 1997 to the present under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai. Search under "srb censored" or "censorship." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 9:55 AM To: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: your website RFD You might want to use the copy directly from news.announce.newgroups. David Lawrence rearranged and added a few things. CHANGES and our names at the end is all I immediately see. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Emma Pease[SMTP:emma@csli.Stanford.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 1:31 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) In news.groups you write: >One of the major tactics used by soc.religion.bahai >and others has always been to smear the character of >anyone who doesn't buckle under, accept their censorship, >and crawl away.... Sound familiar? >No offense, but you're coming rather late to this >discussion. >Read www.dejanews.com for the EVIDENCE from January 17, 1997 >to the present under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai. >Search under "srb censored" or "censorship." [email only] Frederick, I fear you are going for the short term satisfaction of scolding your enemies but ignoring the long term consequence that the scolding is turning neutral people against you and making it just plausible that most of the 600+ no votes last time were anti-glaysher rather than anti-trb votes. I strongly recommend that you speak softly over the next few weeks. Let others do the battling (among other things, your large number of postings drowns out the fact that others are supporting the newsgroup[1]). Let the opponents hang themselves without the shadow of an excuse that your constant arguing is what turned out the anti vote. Emma 1] It is also likely to make people ignore all your postings. I often skip anyone who has posted more than 5 messages in one day on one thread. I am sure I'm not the only person who does this. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 2:08 PM To: Emma Pease Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Emma Pease wrote: Thanks, and I'll try to take your advice.... Most of those recent posts were a mistaken attempt to follow someone else's instructions about getting the dozens of threads into one or two. Sorry. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 1:17 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: your website RFD In message <3461CC4B.225F@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >You might want to use the copy directly from news.announce.newgroups. >David Lawrence rearranged and added a few things. CHANGES and >our names at the end is all I immediately see. Willco. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 1:19 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: RFD posted In message <3461B9D6.CC@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >It should show up faster this time. They had some kind >of technical problem on the last RFD. > >You'll take care of all of the pointers, right? I'll >watch for them on the newsgroups and lists and >confirm they're getting through for you. I've got tomorrow (Friday) off work so, if I don't do it tonight, I will have plenty of time. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: cstone[SMTP:cstone@matrix.ru] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 1997 6:14 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai It is fine, I just did not want you using my current e-mail address, which I would like to keep spam-free ---------- > Ị̂: Frederick Glaysher > Êî́ó: cstone > ̉ǻà: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Äạ̀à: 6 íîÿáđÿ 1997 ă. 15:40 > > cstone wrote: > > > > It is OK by me. Can you submit it yourself to Tale. I am in Russia and > > have still not straightened out the kinks in ISP access. Use my > > cstone@math.unm.edu address in the text, please, nothing else. > > > > Sorry, Tale just posted it.... You had told me to use > the Princeton address before so it never occurred to > me you want that in the RFD. Hope it isn't a serious > problem for you. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 8:23 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: TRB pointers In message <3461CC4B.225F@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >You might want to use the copy directly from news.announce.newgroups. >David Lawrence rearranged and added a few things. CHANGES and >our names at the end is all I immediately see. I've copied it and posted it. The 78 characters per line has been preserved. I have posted pointers, individually (except for the uk.* ones which were posted as a group), to all the newsgroups with floow-ups set to news.groups and the newsgroup itself (so that if there is a response it can be picked up). I have also posted pointers to the 7 listserves at the end of hte RFD. I am not sure if they will get through at the moment but will monitor Announce. The address I used was Bahai-*-request@bcca.org I presume that the full RFDs have been posted to the rest of the groups and e-mail fora. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 9:18 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote: > Give it a rest, Fred. Your job is done. Back off and stop >replying for a while. > > I have no interest in this newsgroup. As a Quaker, I have no need for > talk about bahais. My interest is to try to get a fair vote on this > thing. Adios! I'm off to rake my leaves.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 9:20 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB) Kathy Pascoe wrote: > Show the participants of news.groups that you can listen. Show those > coming in from the Baha'i lists the same thing. I shall take your advice, and thank you for it.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 9:41 AM To: esperantomyhope@hotmail.com Subject: Re: FRED READ THIS?TAKE IT EASY ? I appreciate your expressing your point of view on alt.religion.bahai. Could you also crosspost it at the same time to news.groups? A lot of people there aren't reading the threads posted only to alt.religion.bahai. Thanks. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 9:46 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: TRB pointers Chris Manvell wrote: > > In message <3461CC4B.225F@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >You might want to use the copy directly from news.announce.newgroups. > >David Lawrence rearranged and added a few things. CHANGES and > >our names at the end is all I immediately see. > > I've copied it and posted it. The 78 characters per line has been > preserved. You can change it if you want for your webpage but that's the format required by David Lawrence or whoever. > > I have posted pointers, individually (except for the uk.* ones which > were posted as a group), to all the newsgroups with floow-ups set to > news.groups and the newsgroup itself (so that if there is a response it > can be picked up). > > I have also posted pointers to the 7 listserves at the end of hte RFD. > I am not sure if they will get through at the moment but will monitor > Announce. The address I used was Bahai-*-request@bcca.org I'm assuming they probably all bounced, no? bahai-announce@bcca.org, etc., for each group is the address I had to use last time. You've probably already figured it by now though.... Incidentally, they told me subscription isn't required to post to the lists. > > I presume that the full RFDs have been posted to the rest of the groups > and e-mail fora. I've seen it so far on h-bahai, news.announce.newgroups. I'm going to lay off posting until new week at least. It's all up to you and others...... Good luck.... > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 7:33 PM To: irfan@umich.edu Cc: talisman@umich.edu; Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; H-Bahai@H-net.msu.edu Subject: TRBahai Meeting Concerns The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Am I reading this right, that many of the Baha'is considering voting NO would be satisfied were we to address the issue of making it clear that this newsgroup is not an official cyber publication of the Baha'i Faith. Since this is a concern that the factual status of the newsgroup be communicated, surely there can be a question and answer in a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions introducing newcomers to the newsgroup) worded something like: "What is the relationship between Talk.Religion.Bahai and the Baha'i Faith and its institutions? None whatsoever. This is an unmoderated newsgroup where anyone and everyone may post whatsoever s/he pleases, although such posts ought to be on the topic of the Baha'i Faith. However, such posts pertain only to the individuals posting and are not official Baha'i statements." Such a FAQ could also inform people of where to go in cyberspace to access official Baha'i statements, as well as let them know about the moderated group SRB. I am very interested in hearing feedback on the extent to which this addresses concerns, and I am eager to read any other concerns people may have related to the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai. All the Best, Michael p.s. Can someone kindly cross-post this to Bahai-Discuss. I'll post it to Talisman and Irfan and offer it to SRB and H-Bahai, though these moderated Baha'i forums have hitherto not been receptive to TRB as a topic. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Russ Allbery[SMTP:rra@stanford.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 8:55 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: peter@taronga.com Subject: Re: single transferable votes: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher writes: > Peter da Silva (peter@taronga.com) emailed me the following message and > would like you to contact him. Thanks. Heya, folks. David said that he wouldn't accept an STV ballot for this proposal, so this is somewhat moot at this point, but for the record after thinking about this some more I see Peter's point. You're really not gaining anything from using STV here since the name isn't in question; it just results in slightly clearer ballot language, but that probably won't be of much help. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 2:04 AM To: jcornell@lightspeed.net Cc: irfan@umich.edu; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: TRBahai Re Meeting Concerns The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings, John, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for your remark below. If you've been following the discussion on news.groups you'll see that it is not at all a question of one or two individuals owning the newsgroup. It would not be appropriate for the name to be changed to convey such an erroneous impression. A number of people have been posting to news. groups in quite an unconfrontational manner. This is quite a different situation than it was first time round. There is a recent letter from the Universal House of Justice stating that the existence of such an unmoderated newsgroup is not something they oppose. They even provide guidance, not at all contrary to the highest ideals of USENET, on how Baha'is who so choose may function within such an environment. For example, if my memory serves me, Baha'is may provide correct data on the Baha'i Faith and are to avoid flaming others, etc. What has drawn the keen attention of people reading news.groups is the impression, corrected, it seems, by this letter from the Universal House of Justice, that contrary to USENET ideals Baha'is would wish to prevent discussion about the Baha'i Faith in this only unmoderated newsgroup proposed for one of the big 8 hierarchies of USENET. Someone posted to news.groups the fact that Baha'is are forbidden to burn books, and someone else replied that the Baha'is ought to follow this then and avoid voting against the proposed newsgroup, as that would be burning books. Don't forget that the proposal is for an unmoderated newsgroup. No one, not even the first proponent, is to control what is posted. The best remedy to fears that anyone would be dominating the new group with comments you find disagreeable would be for you and others to post, in a flame free manner, accurate and interesting data and thoughts on the Baha'i Faith. Thus, you may become one of the many people who are intended to own the newsgroup, to the extent anyone can own it. I hope this has made some sense, and I'd be grateful to read any concerns which may remain. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael p.s. this is being posted to news.groups which ought to receive a copy of all posts on the topic of the formation of TRB. I'm also posting this to talisman, irfan, bahai-st, and offering it to soc.religion.Bahai and h-Bahai. Could someone kindly post this to Bahai-Discuss. John B. Cornell quoted McKenny Michael: >> many of the Baha'is considering voting NO would be satisfied were >> we to address the issue of making it clear that this newsgroup is >> not an official cyber publication of the Baha'i Faith. and John B. Cornell commented: > Good point, Michael! The easiest way to accomplish this > is to change the name to talk.michael.mckenny or to > talk.frederick.glaysher. Then everyone would understand > who owns the newsgroup. John -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 12:17 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan@umich.edu; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: TRBahai Considering 3rd RFD The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings, Desmond and all, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I'd like to thank you very much for clarifying things here. My posts over the weekend generated some feedback confirming what you said. I think it is a legitimate concern that this newsgroup not be mistaken for something it isn't, and I believe we ought carefully to draw up an acceptable statement of the actual situation to be included in the charter and FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions). In my view, this requires consultation leading to a 3rd RFD. The proposal is for the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the topic of the Baha'i Faith. Neither of the co-proponents ought to object to the clarifications requested, and, in my view, especially in light of the recent statement from the Universal House of Justice saying they are not opposed to the creation of this newsgroup, nor to the unmoderated discussion of the Baha'i Faith in cyberspace, and indeed their provision of some reasonable guidelines (provide factual information, avoid flaming etc.) for Baha'is participating in such discussions, the name seems well chosen, on the condition it is very clearly conveyed that the posts represent the opinions of individuals and not official Baha'i policy. In light of the intense personalizing of this issue, I feel it would be highly beneficial for additional co-proponents to be listed (I don't know what the rules say about how many may be listed) and that these ought to include people such as Desmond or other(s) aware of such concerns as he shared with us. I think it would be highly constructive to have the input of those aware of such concerns in the drafting of the charter and the FAQ. Among the major aspects of such revised charter and the FAQ would be the conveying of the clear information that the newsgroup has no official connection whatever with Baha'i institutions, as well as the provision of cyberspace addresses where one may locate such official Baha'i data. Thanks again, Desmond, for clarifying thinks. I hope this has been a constructive response to your remarks, and I'm very interested to see where things go from here. Blessed Be, Michael p.s. Could someone kindly post this to Bahai-Discuss. I'll also post it to Bahai-st, talisman, irfan and offer it to moderated soc.religion.Bahai and h-Bahai. From: "Desmond Pemberton-Pigott" Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Date: Fri Nov 7 19:18:38 1997 >This view needs support. Something that I have not seen expressed so >far in the discussion is what I perceive to be a major consideration >for many Baha'is - the issue of t.r.b's creation being a 1-way street. >In the first discussions that took place early this year a lot of >concern was raised about certain issues that included the name, the >public perception of the site being perceived as somehow "official", >serious concern that the real reasons for the creation of t.r.b had >nothing to do with the proposer's stated ones, moderate concern that >nothing had been heard from the Institutions about such a proposal, >some disgust about what was trading across a.r.b (and claimed to be >significant traffic) and indeed a number of other issues. >It is my view that there was a time when a consensus was developing >(among a large number of individuals - no Institutions were involved) >that if the proposal were modified just a little - that a disclaimer >be included stating that this site had nothing to do with any >official Baha'i institution - it would have received major, and >probably overwhelming support. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:11 AM To: McKenny Michael Subject: Re: TRBahai Re Meeting Concerns BCCA has just kicked me off bahai-discuss and several other lists they run.... They've posted a message to all of them denouncing me.... I intend to repost it tomorrow to news.groups. They claim not to be soliciting NO votes.... Any ideas? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:24 AM Subject: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience Abdu'l-Baha, one of three central figures of the Bahai Faith, on conscience: "This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom." Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:30 AM To: Bahai-st Subject: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience "This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom." Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:30 AM To: Bahai-st Subject: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience The Baha'i Studies List: "This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom." Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 4:28 AM To: Bahai-st Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience The Baha'i Studies List: I am going to include this passage on the web page for the lists. It seems to me that is examplifies the basic approach mentioned in the list guidelines - consultation. As I see it consultation (applied unity in diversity) is the basics for _true_ democracy - as that term is used in the Teachings. We need to be tolerant of each others views and express them directly but respectfully. ------ ;-), Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D.), Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (Page me online!) * (913)469-8500, ext.3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (my three web sites) https://cyberjunkie.com/lists (five Baha'i-focused email lists I operate) At 08:30 AM 11/11/97 -0500, Frederick Glaysher quoted from `Abdu'l-Baha: >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious >opinion has free sway.... - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 4:30 PM Subject: Re: The proof: Baha'i interference in voting for TRB Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <64a2uf$so2$1@orthanc.reference.com>, wrote: > > > >Ron, > > > >Aren't you the one who said that the UHJ wasn't infallable? > > This has nothing to do with the discussion of the newsgroup. If you must > try to stir up trouble, do it via private e-mail please. The individual hiding behind "bahai@hotmail.com" is the person who repost several messages of mine from earlier in the spring on bahai-discuss about a month and a half ago. The intention and result were clearly calculated to fan the flames already burning there around my feet.... The BCCA, for instance, wrote me wanting to know if I was the author of the messages but ignored the movtiations of bahai@hotmail.com, masquerading as me (he used my name in the subject line).... BCCA went on falsely accusing me in other ways as well, leading now to their removing me from the subscription list. That bahai@hotmail.com reappears at this time is no coincidence, in my opinion.... He may very well be Mark Towfiq himself, member of the BCCA.... > > Dick D. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 6:57 PM Subject: Advice sought Despite the claims of the BCCA, I believe the message it posted is a highly calculated move to discredit me and the 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai at this crucial juncture when opinions have seemed to be moderating towards its passing. I would appreciate very much any advice on how to proceed from here. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 7:05 PM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience Mark A. Foster wrote: > > The Baha'i Studies List: > > I am going to include this passage on the web page for the lists. It seems > to me that is examplifies the basic approach mentioned in the list > guidelines - consultation. As I see it consultation (applied unity in > diversity) is the basics for _true_ democracy - as that term is used in the > Teachings. We need to be tolerant of each others views and express them > directly but respectfully. Thank you. Thank you.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 7:05 PM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha: conscience The Baha'i Studies List: Mark A. Foster wrote: > > The Baha'i Studies List: > > I am going to include this passage on the web page for the lists. It seems > to me that is examplifies the basic approach mentioned in the list > guidelines - consultation. As I see it consultation (applied unity in > diversity) is the basics for _true_ democracy - as that term is used in the > Teachings. We need to be tolerant of each others views and express them > directly but respectfully. Thank you. Thank you.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 8:29 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Private Re 3rd RFD etc McKenny Michael wrote: > > Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. > If you are well, it is well. > Many thanks for your comments on my request for a 3rd RFD. > In my opinion, your concerns are reasonable, and we ought to be > able to get the approval of USENET officials that if more people > are added to the list of co-proponents, then they would not have > the ability to control the wording of the charter in the area of > defining the topic. I believe it quite justified that you only allow > additional names to be added at the end of a process of discussion > and on the grounds the scope of discussion in the newsgroup remains > as broad as you've proposed. My fear is they'll then abuse the privilege once it's granted, out vote me, and so on. All the tinkering with the RFD though is meaningless in my opinion. They'll find other reasons to oppose it. > This in my view is the chief concern, that there be an > unmoderated newsgroup where anything goes. I think we even could even > find news.groups people willing to be co-proponents to balance the > numbers of others, if there is any doubt about the ability of others > to water down the range of the discussion provided by the newsgroup. Well, maybe.... Bahais will hold your presence on the RFD against the proposal, IMO.... > All the discussion I've seen from anyone on this (including the > fundamentalists) has assumed there would be no way to limit the > range of the subject matter, that even posts by Covenant Breakers > would be considered on topic in the newsgroup. You have reasonable > grounds to wonder about what would happen were extremists placed in > control. That's it.... > Do you have any other concerns about the point that actually > seems to be obtaining votes, that the Charter and FAQ make it clear > that the posts on TRB are not official Baha'i statements? This to me > seems reasonable, as it is a statement of fact. My concern here is that AFTER trb is created that clause would be used repeatedly by the fanatics to beat up on anyone they wish, discredit people, etc.... That's why I was opposed to anything calling for "Bahai conduct" too but eventually had to give in a little though I'm sure I'll live to regret it.... FAQ was tried in July or August by Roger REini. It was an obviously biased tract, all agreed, and it was given up. > Actually, fanaticism is not monolithic. Persuasion may not work > with the extremists, but extremists are actually in the minority. > This is why my posts have drawn such positive reaction from some > Baha'is, and that any response I've got from the most extreme doesn't > sound very convincing to the majority following this issue. In my > opinion, this is why moderated Baha'i cyberspace has been so keen to > prevent discussion of Talk.Religion.Bahai. Good point. That's probably true. And why they constantly DEMONIZE me.... I see that behind the BCCA's latest attack, which is definitely a de facto NO vote campaign.... I think there is momentum > now to pull off a yes vote, though that's not a guarantee. However, I > believe the extra time a 3rd RFD would give, as well as the statement > of fact that the newsgroup is not official, important. I agree. There's a real chance a Yes vote could happen and the BCCA's low dirty trick shows they're really worried. Please say that if you agree on news.groups.... We have still up to 50 days on this RFD. It turns out my earlier understanding of the time frame was off. 60 days is the maximum allowed, 21 the minimum. Let's allow this to run on as long as possible, 2 or 3 weeks at least, before calling for another RFD. The time seems to be on our side and makes it look less credible for the fanatics to vote NO when all the secular news.groupies are definitely against them and then the Faith as a result.... I've been opposed to any statement about it not being offficial because I also think it will be used by the exteremeists later to discredit and cast aspersions.... What then is the official? SRB!!!! That's conceding too much. We should perhaps raise that issue and scrutinize its RFD. > You are undoubtedly correct that there are a few people who would > like absolute control over everything said and thought. However, this > letter from the Universal House of Justice is worded so as to allow > Talk.Religion.Bahai to form, and I think we can pull it off. Let's > take the little extra time of going to the 3rd RFD, even if only to > produce the statement on the unofficial nature of the group. This > adds to the extent to which the proposal seems reasonable to those > following this on news.groups and elsewhere. All right, don't announce it yet, but let's head for a 3rd RFD.... The message from the UHJ seems so ambiguous as to be meaningless to me. The fanatics have all interpreted it as supporting their voting NO.... > May this find you very well, and may the future be better than > we hope. I'm interested in your reaction. I am busy for a lot of this > day, including a meeting tonight (Wednesday) and I will try to follow > what's going on and to reply to any messages from you or significant > posts as soon as I can. If it seems I've missed something don't > hesitate to draw it to my attention again. Thanks, Michael. I need you in this a lot. Please don't abandon me.... There's a limit to how far I trust Chris and certainly Roger Reini, who jumped ship long ago.... > All the Best, > Michael > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 8:52 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Notarius wrote: > > I am shocked, Frederick. > I dont know what happened recently between you and the BCCA that triggered > the decision - I look at the timing. They are using force on you at a very > delicate moment: > t.r.b. has a chance of being created. That's the way I see it. In early September I wrote David Lawrence and Jonathan Grobe asking them for advice on how to combat the private Bahai lists that were already being used to get up the NO vote. One of them suggested I subscribe to all of them and try to answer them which I did. There have been over 250 messages on trb posted to bahai-discuss. I have answered very few of them and then in very moderate terms.... So I don't know what the problem is.... It's not my posts ON bahai-discuss.... > > BCCA wrote: > > >The Co-ordinating Committee of the Baha'i Computer and > >Communications Association regrets to announce that Mr Frederick > >Glaysher has been unsubscribed from all of the BCCA lists which > >included his name and email address and that steps have been > >taken to prevent his posting to any forum for which we have > >responsibility. > > They would love to include a.r.b., Frederick. All lists? They do seem to love to hate me and demonize me.... Again, to me, I've become a surrogate, or scapegoat really, for the real issue: Bahai opposition to free speech and conscience.... > > > [...]our decision should not be taken as indicating any stance > >on the question of his proposal for a new Usenet group. > > It is a very effective stance. Kicking out one of the proponents > tells the world what they think of t.r.b. It sure does. It's a de facto NO vote solicitation, and they know it.... Like waving a red flag in front of a bull..... > > >The Committee now urges all the believers who participate in > >online Baha'i activities to focus their attention on the urgent > >needs of the time and to renew their efforts towards successful > >completion of the Four-Year Plan. > > That is, forget that the Baha'is have a chance of getting one of the greatest > breakthroughs ever, a dedicated usenet newsgroup. Yes. Forget it and leave us in control of every idea and thought you're exposed to.... > > >We earnestly hope that the acrimonious exchanges of past weeks > >will now be forgotten and that there will be no repeat > >of them. > > Now, behave, the rest of you. And dont bring this up again. Right, if you're a holy soul.... > You are being banned from all lists by one central authority. > Its like being banned from all official newspapers by a national authority. Yes. Ex cathedra or something like it. No warning, no trial, no evidence, no appeal, just Mr. Glaysher's a miscreant.... BE GONE! I believe their act is clear evidence of how worried some Bahais are now that the proposal for talk.religion.bahai will pass.... Since BCCA is quasi-official Bahai "committee," it makes me wonder too about the sincerity of the message from the Universal House of Justice: one message for the public, another on back channels? I'm not sure but it worries me and erodes my trust and confidence.... > > notarius -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Ron House wrote: > > I found myself wondering why a Baha'i should be banned from > Baha'i lists. So far we don't know the reason, and I for one would > like Frederick and/or the list maintainers to tell us. I have no idea.... It can't be because of the messages I've to bahai-discuss. Roger Reini and Chris Manvell both subscribe to it and can attest, if willing, to the fact that I've responded to relatively very few messages and then in quite innocuous terms.... It seems they love to hate my guts.... Bahai love.... I'd be happy to repost here any message I originally posted to bahai-discuss. > > Is this another example of Baha'i censorship, or a valid > response to unreasonable action? I for one would draw > the line here: if the list maintainers don't like > what Frederick says, or don't like the volume of > his postings, then I would call their action > unjustified; if Frederick has been doing something > that sabotages the list, like postings huge volumes > of spam or mass-mailing other list recipients, I > would say the list maintainers are justified. I > particularly do NOT think that disliking Fred's > `tone of voice' is a good enough reason. I've done nothing to attack bahai-discuss; I've posted there very little compared to the more than 250 messages about talk.religion.bahai over the last month and a half. No spam or mass-mailing. During the last three and a half months, I have endeavored to improve my "tone" in general. That's all the more true of my posts to bahai-discuss.... I invite anyone on bahai-discuss to repost any of my messages from there to here if you think there's something I wrote so terribly offensive to merit this action.... > Normally this wouldn't be a matter for discussion here, > but as this action has taken place at just this > critical time, I think the question of attempted > interference in the TRB vote must be raised. I couldn't agree more. It is an action with consequences for trb.... It was on bahai-discuss that someone threatened 900 NO votes this time. I now can no longer monitor what is taking place there. I'm convinced the heavy NO vote last time was partly the result of marshalling on the Bahai-only lists.... Those who want to do so again can now give free rein to their designs.... > > Will Fred or the list maintainers please respond? I would welcome a response here on news.groups from the BCCA, even Mark Towfiq.... Please feel free to repost any of my messages to bahai-discuss or the three or four messages I wrote directly to the BCCA, asking for their help, protection, and intervention, regarding the Bahai woman who threatened me on bahai-discuss.... I have nothing to hide.... I am willing to discuss this fully and in the public view.... > -- > Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because > people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Tenant bites landlord causing his death bahai@hotmail.com wrote: > > CAIRO, Nov 10 (AFP) - A woman bit her landlord during a fight > > over the rent causing the man's death, two government newspapers > > said here on Monday, quoting police reports. > > Najah Mohammad Abdallah, 38, suffered from a sharp drop in his > > blood pressure and died of a heart attack after the unidentified > > tenant bit his leg, Al-Gomhoriya and Al-Akhbar reported. > > Abdallah had gone as usual to a building he owned in Helwan, an > > industrial neighborhood south of Cairo, to collect the rent but he > > met resistance from at least one tenant. > > The woman refused to give him the 18 pounds (five dollars) in > > rent money she owed him, handing over four dollars only, the dailies > > said. > > Incensed, Abdallah pulled her hair and she fought back, biting > > him in the calf so hard that he fainted and died, the dailies said. > > The tenant was arrested and admitted biting the landlord, but > > said she had meant no harm. > > -- > > Posted using Reference.COM https://www.reference.com > Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog. > > InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting. This posting confirms my suspicion that "bahai@hotmail.com" is indeed Mark Towfiq, a member of the BCCA.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 9:43 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Ron House wrote: SRB is > a pale, wishy washy rag written down to the lowest > common denominator. I posted a sample rejection here > that was rejected, among other reasons, for not > having a conclusion! God forbid that anyone might > post an article that asks the reader to form their > own conclusion! Everything is diluted, simplified, > and infantilised on SRB. The sheep are fed the mush > the moderators decide is in their interests. Any > amount of stepping round spam or other nonsense is > worth it to be free of that sickening bilge. > Thanks, Ron, for saying it like it is.... I can't respond to you on news.groups lest I'm attacked again as the incarnation of all evil.... If anything interesting appears only on arb, I'll repost it to news.groups or send you a copy directly. >From the bottom of my heart, thank you for sharing your thoughts on everything on news.groups.... It's been a long and lonely battle for during the last year and I fear I'm giving out at the end, the onslaught is so intense.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 9:48 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Dick Detweiler wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > You need to understand something here. One of the major reasons > if not the major reason the TRB RFD is not being discussed on SRB > is because the proponent made it clear that he desired discussion > to take place only on news.groups. As they say - you can look it > up. The moderators of SRB and the other lists are only following > the wishes of the proponent. In fact, the proponent has repeatedly > used the fact that discussion was taking place other places as > a "proof" of some kind of wrong doing. We can't have it both ways. > If there is a need for a 3rd RFD, then is the time to address the > issue of discussion of this proposal in other places. For now, > I think we will all have to live with this as it is. If you want > to see this change anytime soon, you need to take it up with > Fred. > > Hope that helps, > > Dick D. Where discussion should take place has varied at times. I've been told one thing and then another. Recently, some are saying it's okay to discuss elsewhere but crosspost it to news.groups. Okay. I have not problem with that. It's the posting ONLY to, say, bahai-discuss, that's a problem.... In terms of srb, Mr. Detweiler is a former moderator.... SRB utterly refuses to post anything about trb. They did this last time and are doing it again. I invite anyone or everyone to test the waters yourself if you don't believe me.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 10:04 AM Cc: chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote: > Next, I agree that maybe you should get the agreement of several > people to in some manner, using a FAQ, a sig file or some other means, > to reiterate that it is not an official Baha'i group, if not produce a > more official posting which explains your faith. But I think you could > find those who have been posting here who would be willing to take the > effort to post such a FAQ, and FWIW, I don't think it would hurt the > proponent AT ALL to add such as disclaimer to the charter, as the fact > that religion groups are not official mouthpieces for their topic > really is a well known Usenet concept - what difference could it make > to "codify" that. Then someone could simply periodically post the > charter, which is done in many groups. You may be right, Ginger. My fear has been that more extremist views will use such a FAQ for their own agenda and use it to bash other opinions into the ground.... I've tried to conceive of a broad and open forum for Bahais and non-Bahais, without putting any perspective to the fore.... There are Bahais who want more control over what's said than I think is justifiable in an unmoderated forum. That's all. That's the only reason I've opposed the idea. I see it as another attempt to control and narrow and restrict what speech is permissible. I believe the "Bahai conduct" clause added recently to the 2nd RFD will be abused eventually in the same way.... > > However, I can't help write a FAQ for a Baha'i group, and I can only > suggest to the proponents that they make what would be a REALLY simple > add in to the charter. You are right that it would be simple but right and prudent? I don't know. Other opinions? > Ginger -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 10:06 AM To: robert litle Subject: Re: Advice sought Please do not email me directly but respond on news.groups. robert litle wrote: > > A prayer for unity couldn't hurt. > > Robert A. Little > > -----Original Message----- > From: FG > Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai > Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 2:57 PM > Subject: Advice sought > > >Despite the claims of the BCCA, I believe the message > >it posted is a highly calculated move to discredit me > >and the 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai at this > >crucial juncture when opinions have seemed to be > >moderating towards its passing. > > > >I would appreciate very much any advice on how to > >proceed from here. > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > >news.announce.newgroups, or at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 9:03 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote: Frankly, it makes > you look like another bunch of scientologists, trying to stop others > from discussing your religion. It makes you look like you have > something to hide about your religion. It makes you look like there > are good arguments against being a bahai, and you want to keep these > arguments from being heard. I know that none of this is true, and > that bahais really are against censorship, but you really do want > to consider the impression that no votes leave. If you don't like the > newsgroup, don't read it. Just don't try to stop those who do want to > read it by voting no. By and large, with the exception of one idea, this is basically how I see it too.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 9:14 AM To: Chris Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > To Fred. Your last few e-mails received. DV, I shall be back to you > later today. I feel that if we can agree a 3rd RFD (Quite happy to put > it together and then pass it to you for approval/emending). We could go > for a vote sooner rather than later as the discussion seems to have > levelled out here. > I'm willing to compromise and use Ginger Glaser's wording for a disclaimer but no passage from the writings or from the UHJ. No FAQ. It would be hopelessly biased. As Guy has suggested, anyone can post one to their hearts content if they wish anyway. I'm considering allowing in two or three other people as proponents. I think they should be non-Bahais. Opinion? Also, later, not sooner, is in the best interest of the proposal passing. I'm now in no rush. Quite the reverse. Things are calming down on at least news.groups despite the contemptible attack on me from the BCCA. What kind of fanaticism are they posting over there now? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Notarius wrote: > I am rather certain that this decision will come back and haunt > the BCCA without any effort on our part. > Spiritual laws are set in motion. You have more faith than I have these days in such things happening in Bahai circles.... > > notarius -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 9:48 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai BCCA and Revenge etc McKenny Michael wrote: > It would be great if Fred or someone could confirm that he > was posting over the weekend, even if it was on other topics, and > provide an assessment of how such posts would be rated on the Flame > Index. I haven't posted to bahai-discuss for a week or two at least and even then very rarely in proportion to the well over 250 messages that have been posted to my server from there.... I think Henrietta has a made a wise suggestion: shake the dust from my feet, and go on.... > Ron House wrote: > >I found myself wondering why a Baha'i should be banned from > >Baha'i lists. So far we don't know the reason, and I for one would > >like Frederick and/or the list maintainers to tell us. > > >Is this another example of Baha'i censorship, or a valid > >response to unreasonable action? I for one would draw > >the line here: if the list maintainers don't like > >what Frederick says, or don't like the volume of > >his postings, then I would call their action > >unjustified; if Frederick has been doing something > >that sabotages the list, like postings huge volumes > >of spam or mass-mailing other list recipients, I > >would say the list maintainers are justified. I > >particularly do NOT think that disliking Fred's > >`tone of voice' is a good enough reason. > > >Normally this wouldn't be a matter for discussion here, > >but as this action has taken place at just this > >critical time, I think the question of attempted > >interference in the TRB vote must be raised. > > >Will Fred or the list maintainers please respond? > > -- > >Ron House > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 10:05 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Ginger Glaser wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:16:27 -0500, Kathy Pascoe > wrote: > > >The bulk of the discussion needs to be in news.groups. Since most of > >the discussion is already crossposted to arb, that's two groups already > >discussing this topic. Anyone from srb is certainly able to get > >news.groups to view the discussion. > > > Er, except perhaps those who read it through the email gateway, who > may not have newreaders but most certainly have valid mailing (and > thus voting) addresses. And one third to one half the readers of soc.religion.bahai read it through email.... > > Ginger -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 10:06 AM Cc: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk; bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Subject: More proponents? While I was away over the weekend raking my leaves, Chris Manvell mentioned to the effect that he really felt trb was still under my control or whatever.... I'd like to reassure him and everyone else that I don't think of it that way. I believe he is and should be a full partner or co-proponent of the proposal. As I've stated in the past in terms of decisions, it should be agreement or stalement, not majority vote, among proponents, for the sake of unity.... Since many Bahais seem to continue to perceive me as the center of all evil, I suggest adding 2 or 3 more proponents. I have only two suggestions about doing so. One, they should be non-Bahais since Chris and I are both Bahais and there should be some representation of other views given the unmoderated span of opinion hoped for on trb. Two, all decisions or changes should be by unanimous agreement or stalemate, with each person having veto power, sort of like the UN Security Council, if you will.... Nominations? I'd like to invite Michael McKenny who used to be a Bahai but is no longer since his explusion from the Bahai Faith in July of this year. Since he's not a covenant breaker, but a non-Bahai with some sense of the importance of free speech and individual conscience, I think he'd be a good possibility that even Bahais should not object to. I would greatly appreciate it if one or two "news.groupies" who have closely followed the discussion all along would consider helping out. Guy Macon, Henrietta Thomas, Russ Allbery seem to have a strong grasp of the complex and volatile issues involved.... Others? Ginger Glaser? What do you think? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 10:23 AM Cc: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: 2nd RFD pointers? I'm finding more of them now on www.dejanews.com. Since I've contacted all the moderators and newsgroups in the past, perhaps I should post the pointers for the 3rd RFD. I'm getting only 9 of the newsgroups coming up, instead of 18.... I never saw any of the pointers on the BCCA lists and I subscribed then to most of them.... As I emailed you, I think you may have used the wrong address. Anyway, it's complicated, time-consuming, and we'll get it right next time. Chris wrote: > > The pointers were sent out at about noon on 07/11/1997, under the > heading, "TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI: Pointer to 2nd RFD", to the following > groups. In the list (m) indicates a moderated list which may or may not > have posted the pointer and (p) indicate that the pointer definitely has > been posted, (np) that it has not been posted to date. > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ (m) (np), > soc.religion.eastern (m) (np), > soc.religion.gnosis (m) (p), > soc.religion.hindu (m) (np), > soc.religion.paganism (m) (p), > soc.religion.quaker (p), > soc.religion.sikhism (m) (np), > soc.religion.vaishnava (m) (np), > talk.religion.buddhism (p), > talk.religion.newage (p), > alt.religion.islam (p), > alt.religion (p), > a.bsu.religion (p), > uk.religion.misc (p), > uk.religion.interfaith (p), > uk.religion.other-faiths (p), > news.admin.censorship (not checked), > soc.rights.human (not checked) > > In addition, the pointer, with the same title, was sent to the following > e-mail groups. As I am not a participant on most of these groups I > cannot comfirm receipt. Can anyone else posting here advise me of > delivery status? > > Bahai-Announce (np) (BA does not post material that has been sent to > Bahai-Discuss) > Bahai-Discuss (p) (also serves as a post to Bahai-Announce) > Bahai-Campus-Forum > Bahai-Singles > Bahai-Teachers > Bahai-Women-Converse > Bahai-Youth > > An informal pointer was also sent, as a private message, to > > Bahai-Exchange-UK (p) > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 12:00 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD pointers? In message <3469CC3B.405A@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >It's been a week since the 2nd RFD and pointers were posted. >I've only seen the RFD on news.announce.newgroups, >soc.religion.bahai, and h-bahai.... > >I've just checked the more than 20 newsgroups on the RFD >and not a one has it. Has anyone seen the 2nd RFD pointers? > >Chris, what subject title did you use? Are you getting >through from the UK or what? I did a "Quick" analysis of the groups posted to (had to download nearly 2000 news items to do it) and have posted the results to news.groups. I am currently checking up on the whole discussion (>400 posts) to pick up on all the added suggestions and will posts the results with my comments. I would value your response, though I think you have already responded positively to most of them anyway. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 1:04 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD pointers? In message <346B0D69.22DF@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I'm finding more of them now on www.dejanews.com. Since I've >contacted all the moderators and newsgroups in the past, >perhaps I should post the pointers for the 3rd RFD. I'm >getting only 9 of the newsgroups coming up, instead of >18.... I never saw any of the pointers on the BCCA lists >and I subscribed then to most of them.... As I emailed you, >I think you may have used the wrong address. Anyway, it's >complicated, time-consuming, and we'll get it right next time. Your're probably right to post the pointers as I am new to this sort of thing. However, in view of your problems, if you want I will ahve another go at the bcca groups, if you like -- only this time I will leave out the -request bit. It seems to work with BX-UK but not with the others, for some reason. B-Discuss is not a problem as I post there anyway and B-Announce filters out any posts that is crossposted to B-D. I assume that there is no problem with the non-Baha'i-owned lists. If there is, please give me the address and I will post. Maggie is on talisman and irfan so there is no problem there. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 3:31 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More proponents? This message has not appeared on news.groups yet on my server so I am answering by e-mail. I am of to sing carols now so will not be back for a few hours. Will check out hte group then. In the meantime you can forward this if you feel like it. Chris. In message <346B0970.235@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >While I was away over the weekend raking my leaves, >Chris Manvell mentioned to the effect that he really >felt trb was still under my control or whatever.... Not quite. To me it is still basically YOUR proposal (as you were, shall we say, the initiator) and I was saying that if there was a stalemate, I would defer to your descision. >I'd like to reassure him and everyone else that I >don't think of it that way. I believe he is and should >be a full partner or co-proponent of the proposal. Thank-you. >As I've stated in the past in terms of decisions, it >should be agreement or stalement, not majority vote, >among proponents, for the sake of unity.... The problem is, what do you do if it IS a stalemate? >Since many Bahais seem to continue to perceive me as >the center of all evil, I suggest adding 2 or 3 >more proponents. I have only two suggestions about >doing so. One, they should be non-Bahais since Chris >and I are both Bahais and there should be some >representation of other views given the unmoderated >span of opinion hoped for on trb. Two, all decisions >or changes should be by unanimous agreement or stalemate, >with each person having veto power, sort of like the UN >Security Council, if you will.... I feel that you have struck a right chord by suggesting a non-Baha'i. I'm not so sure about bringing in several more proponents. I have already been accused of politicing (though teh person concerned has since become a supporter of TRB). Brining in lots more could really look like potitics. >Nominations? I'd like to invite Michael McKenny who >used to be a Bahai but is no longer since his explusion >from the Bahai Faith in July of this year. Since he's >not a covenant breaker, but a non-Bahai with some sense >of the importance of free speech and individual conscience, >I think he'd be a good possibility that even Bahais should >not object to. Michael and I did have a bit of a run-in once (Nine Brewers) but I am prepared to forget all that if he wants to be involved. >I would greatly appreciate it if one or two "news.groupies" >who have closely followed the discussion all along would >consider helping out. Guy Macon, Henrietta Thomas, Russ >Allbery seem to have a strong grasp of the complex and >volatile issues involved.... Others? Ginger Glaser? That's up to them. I would be happy to welcome any of them on board. >What do you think? I would say no more than 4 co-proponents. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 2:46 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Thanks, Ron, for saying it like it is.... I can't > respond to you on news.groups lest I'm attacked > again as the incarnation of all evil.... 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. > If anything > interesting appears only on arb, I'll repost it to > news.groups or send you a copy directly. Thanks. > From the bottom of my heart, thank you for sharing > your thoughts on everything on news.groups.... It's > been a long and lonely battle for during the last > year and I fear I'm giving out at the end, the > onslaught is so intense.... I am sure that Baha'u'llah Himself is with us. I don't say that lightly but as a result of experiences (spiritual encounters). All that is needed is for us to be as fair and truthful as we possibly can and He will provide strength. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:10 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Ron House wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > Thanks, Ron, for saying it like it is.... I can't > > respond to you on news.groups lest I'm attacked > > again as the incarnation of all evil.... > > 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. I couldn't agree more with you. You got it! I've been saying essentially the above for months on and off on arb. It would be good for it to come from someone other than myself. Could you state the above on news.groups when appropriate? > > > If anything > > interesting appears only on arb, I'll repost it to > > news.groups or send you a copy directly. > > Thanks. > > > From the bottom of my heart, thank you for sharing > > your thoughts on everything on news.groups.... It's > > been a long and lonely battle for during the last > > year and I fear I'm giving out at the end, the > > onslaught is so intense.... > > I am sure that Baha'u'llah Himself is with us. > I don't say that lightly but as a result of > experiences (spiritual encounters). All that is > needed is for us to be as fair and truthful as we > possibly can and He will provide strength. God, I wish I could believe it anymore.... Any ideas on how to handle the BCCA's attack on me? > > -- > Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because > people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:16 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: 2nd RFD pointers? Chris Manvell wrote: > > In message <346B0D69.22DF@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >I'm finding more of them now on www.dejanews.com. Since I've > >contacted all the moderators and newsgroups in the past, > >perhaps I should post the pointers for the 3rd RFD. I'm > >getting only 9 of the newsgroups coming up, instead of > >18.... I never saw any of the pointers on the BCCA lists > >and I subscribed then to most of them.... As I emailed you, > >I think you may have used the wrong address. Anyway, it's > >complicated, time-consuming, and we'll get it right next time. > > Your're probably right to post the pointers as I am new to this sort of > thing. However, in view of your problems, if you want I will ahve > another go at the bcca groups, if you like -- only this time I will > leave out the -request bit. It seems to work with BX-UK but not with > the others, for some reason. B-Discuss is not a problem as I post there > anyway and B-Announce filters out any posts that is crossposted to B-D. > I assume that there is no problem with the non-Baha'i-owned lists. If > there is, please give me the address and I will post. Maggie is on > talisman and irfan so there is no problem there. All right. Yes, please post to the bcca groups without the -request tag. They're on the RFD. The others we needn't worry about. > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:37 AM Cc: chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > Neither of the two posts leading up to your response are available on my > IAP server so I am not quite sure what Ron is responding to. can you > fill me in on exactly what Ron is talking about. > I'll forward them to you. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:39 AM Cc: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Sharon Bouchard wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 02:18:38 +0200, "Desmond Pemberton-Pigott" > wrote: > > >Sharon Bouchard wrote in message <345cee8f.5202715@news.cyberatl.net>... > >>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:11:07 -0500, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote: > >> > >>>The Bahais who did this last time apparently don't realize > >>>how much THEY have harmed the image of the Bahai Faith by > >>>undermining the Usenet voting system and that they are doing > >>>so again.... Perhaps you can subscribe to Bahai-discuss and > >>>explain it to them.... > >> > >>I've already done so, and encouraged people to read news.groups, and > >>at least one post I saw today shows that someone took the suggestion > >>seriously. > >> > >>The thing is, Fred, if you want to explain it to the folks on the > >>mailing lists, it will be necessary to find a way to explain the > >>situation in a way that they will be able to receive it. > > > >This view needs support. > > Which view? I'm not too clear on what you meant. > > The image of the Faith has been harmed? Or that anyone is undermining > the Usenet voting system? The latter I can understand. Evidence to > support the former is here on news.groups within the last couple of > weeks. > > Something that I have not seen expressed so far in > >the discussion is what I perceive to be a major consideration for many > >Baha'is - the issue of t.r.b's creation being a 1-way street. In the first > >discussions that took place early this year a lot of concern was raised > >about certain issues that included the name, the public perception of the > >site being perceived as somehow "official", serious concern that the real > >reasons for the creation of t.r.b had nothing to do with the proposer's > >stated ones, moderate concern that nothing had been heard from the > >Institutions about such a proposal, some disgust about what was trading > >across a.r.b (and claimed to be significant traffic) and indeed a number of > >other issues. > > I wasn't around for this the first time, but some of those issues have > been raised in this discussion. I raised many of them myself when I > first came into news.groups. > > Fortunately, this time we have heard from the House on this proposal, > which may be of assistance to many people in voting (whatever their > choice may be). > > >It is my view that there was a time when a consensus was developing (among a > >large number of individuals - no Institutions were involved) that if the > >proposal were modified just a little - that a disclaimer be included stating > >that this site had nothing to do with any official Baha'i institution - it > >would have received major, and probably overwhelming support. > > > >The proposer's responses to these suggestions (there were others) was so > >offensive and intolerant (judging by people's responses) that most people > >assumed there was some hidden agenda at work. After all, why would a site > >being proposed by an individual object to a disclaimer stating that it was > >not in any way an official "Baha'i site"? It appears that a lot of people > >felt the proposer wanted the site to be established and that it should, > >through silence on the issue, appear to bear the name of the Faith in a > >quasi-official capacity. > > I have no idea, not having been here. Though I too would think it > hardly controversial to include a disclaimer somewhere that states > ideas expressed on t.r.b. may not reflect the actual teachings of the > Faith. I'm mystified as to why anyone would object to that, and yeah, > if someone did, I would also suspect some hidden agenda at work. > That's why I don't see some conspiracy of No votes going on anywhere. > It makes perfect sense to me as it is. > > >That the site *couldn't* be official, being on the USENET, may not get > >through to the majority of people who expressed concern about this issue. > > That's why I've tried to explain that, even absent disclaimers, the > Baha'i participants are surely capable of making this clear to people > using t.r.b. Even with a disclaimer, it would still require the > active explanations of participating Baha'is to explain this, at least > from time to time. But fellow Baha'is will have to be convinced that > there will be people on t.r.b. to actually *do* this sort of thing. > Well, that's why I'm speaking up here -- to let people know that I'm > used to this sort of thing, and willing to do it. > > >It was made very clear to everyone that once a group is created, it is very > >unlikely to be removed, and there was therefore a great deal of interest in > > This is a consideration that hasn't been raised here yet, but it's > certainly one I've thought of. This is one of the reasons I can > understand why many folks would vote No. It's not a conspiracy, it's > just that many people would like to be more conservative in their > approach to this, and if that means we have to wait to do it right, so > we wait. > > >seeing the process of creation done in a way that addressed people's feeling > >and comprehensions. When no such accomodation was forthcoming, people voted > >their conscience. > > This is what I figured must've happened the first time around. I've > certainly seen Baha'is work in these sorts of democratic situations > long enough to have a fair idea of how many people think. > > >I saw the entire process within the Baha'i-Discuss group and at no time was > >there any evidence of peculiar organization of "No's". People know quite > >well how to consult. We are very used to it and we are also used to having > >a vote and exercising it. The endless berating about how we cannot vote > >"No" for a whole bunch of reasons - "canons" - does not sit very well with a > >thousand people who are used to a plain democracy. > > It doesn't sit very well with me either, for that matter. I am unused > to fellow Baha'is trying to tell me "you must vote so and so" and hope > I have managed to express my views in ways that make it clear I am in > no way trying to make anyone think "you have to vote X, or you're > doing the wrong thing." > > It violates the principle of "independent investigation" to go around > telling other people what conclusions they must come to, imnsho. > It doesn't get you much of a hearing either... > > >Explanations are not enough in this case. There are a lot of Baha'is, and > >probably others (who knows?) who want this non-Baha'i site clearly marked, > >somehow in the proposal, as being exactly what it is. This is not a > >far-fetched request and the proposer would not address it. If the proposer > >does not address people's concerns - whatever their state of "ignorance" of > >USENET "rules" and "canons" then they will vote it down. You are dealing > >with a lot of people who are not used to abstaining. > > And if they think that's the best course, then far be it from me to > tell them to do otherwise. I would only encourage people to find out > the wider ramifications of voting No instead of abstaining, and to > make the attempt to understand that abstention might also be a > possibility to pursue. > > But I must respectfully disagree with you on one thing. ime Baha'is > are used to abstaining. It happens every year in Octover, and again > in April, whenever we have elections. It's just that no one > *explicitly* abstains. But I know I have abstained in situations > where I was new to a community and didn't know anyone, and so didn't > feel qualified to vote for anyone. Others have said they've done the > same. > > When cast in this light, I think the issue of abstaining would feel > very familiar to Baha'is. > > And of course, there's the other point I'm trying to explain, that > this is not just a Baha'i thing. This is like the public square, not > like a Baha'i newsletter. > > What might be very appropriate to deny in a Baha'i newsletter may well > not be appropriate to deny in the public square. What would do no > harm refuse to include in a Baha'i newsletter may cause damage to the > Faith if we actively sought to shut people up in the public square. > > Or to make another parallel -- we may choose to "censor" anti-Baha'i > or Covenant Breaker materials in our own homes, simply by not > bothering to buy them. > > But we are *not* allowed to go to public libraries and remove those > materials so that no one else can read them. > > (This very question has been raised in LSA consultations before, and > the LSA was unanimous, and very clear, that any effort to remove an > anti-Baha'i book from any library shelf, through legal or illegal > means, was unacceptable. It was something of a "no-brainer" > consultation, as you might imagine.) > > Anyway, it's this "difference of venue" that I'm seeking to get > across. > > People are free to agree with my reasoning or reject it, as they wish, > and they'll get no complaint from me about it. > > >>>> You see, if someone wants to go off and make unfounded accusations > >>>> about secret cabals designed to shoot down proposed news groups so we > >>>> Baha'is can censor ideas we don't like,... > > > >*Everyone* knows that any and all ideas liked and not liked are posted to > >open groups. There are already lots of places one can post things on the > >Baha'i Faith so that is not the issue IMV. > > I think you described the issue very well above, and I've said before > that I would prefer some sort of "disclaimer" included as part of this > proposal. Whether it's done in the charter or a FAQ or whatever, > doesn't matter much, but I would prefer to see it done somewhere. > > I think the concern that an unmoderated forum might be misunderstood > to reflect the teachings of the Faith is well worh considering, and > see no harm at all in addressing that concern, especially since it > would take so little effort, and could hardly be thought controversial > by anyone. I can see the harm that's been done by denying that the > concern is valid, though. But there are people here who are willing > to work at addressing that concern. Can we try to do so together? > > >>>The proof that it happened was the 691 NO votes and the > >>>NO vote campaign message, surely only one of many.... > > > >There was no such campaign. I note that the *claim* of there being one has > >brought in a few reactionary "Yes" votes who are suitably offended by the > >possibility. I wonder if enough such claims and accusations of things like > >"ballot-box stuffing" (like I get 3 votes or something) will make more of a > >difference than accomodating the concerns of a thousand concerned parties. > >> > >>That is no proof of anything save _vox populi_. That you keep > >>alluding to some deep dark C-O-N-spiracy does zilch to make it so. > > > >Thanks Sharon > > Any time. > > How can you pacify a large group of > >(presumably) vote-holding Baha'is who don't want any inferrable Official > >stamp of approval attached to t.r.b? Clearly the name is an issue in people > >minds - legitimate or not in USENET "rules" (one of which is that they get a > >vote). > > Ah, but a problem in naming, one might argue, *is* a legitimate reason > to vote No. > > Certainly if one had reason to suspect the entire t.r.b. would be > filled with anti-Baha'i traffic, then one could argue the name is > wrong, and would be better named t.r.anti-bahai. > > I would consider voting No on those grounds myself, if I thought that > would be the case. But since there are some visible posters who show > willingness to participate there, and others are likely to turn up > over time, I don't think that's the likely outcome. MMV. > > >And there is no "Vote No" campaign going round this time either. And in the > >present circumstances I think it will go down heavily again unless people's > >concerns are addressed. > > Though perhaps not quite as heavily as last time. If that's the case, > then I would think there has at least been some progress. When I get > worried is when I start seeing *no* discussion, because that will mean > people have stopped reflecting on things and are just voting by > reflex. > > If all it takes is addressing a major concern via putting in a > disclaimer, then that will happen, if not this time, then at some time > in the future. I can be patient. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:43 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote: > > Isaac Freeman wrote: > > > I think that would go a long way to addressing many people's concerns. > > I'd suggest something like "not endorsed in any way by any institution of > > the Baha'i Faith", as that makes clearer the distinction between individual > > members of the Baha'i Faith, and any official positions the Baha'i Faith > > might collectively hold. > > > > That is a better phrasing than mine was. Actually, I prefer yours Ginger because it is more broad and open, which I think the newsgroup should be.... It goes without saying that Christianity doesn't support the statements of every Christian; it should logically hold the same for Bahais. In my opinion, those who want to spell everything out and motivated by a desire to hem in discussion and provide groundwork for later denunications of those they consider heretics or whatever.... > > Ginger -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:49 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Ginger Glaser wrote: > >> > >> This group is for open discussion of issues realting to the Baha'i > >> faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the Baha'i Church. (my > >> apologies if I chose the incorrect term) > >> > >> It wouldn't tell people what they could post or couldn't post, but > >> should address the concerns of those who are worried about some newbie > >> somehow mistaking the occasional SPAM as being an official Baha'i > >> posting. There is no true content control in unmoderated groups, but the > >> regular posters can and will set the tone. > > > >Well, maybe you have a good point. We don't use the word church. > >No problem. Just Bahai Faith will do it though. Ginger's sentence > >seems hard to make sense.... I'm willing to go with it. Chris, what > >you think? Others? > > I'm about 1/4 way through checking all the posts about TRB! So, I'm > only checking those after 5th November now. You seem pretty far behind the discussion, Chris. Maybe it's best to just pick up where we all are.... > > For some reason the two posts preceding Fred's ones have not reached my > site and are reported as "Not available" by my IAP. Thus I only have > what Fred has quoted to go by.Please can someone e-mail them to me. I forwarded a couple of other posts to you but it seems that's only going to add to the backlog for you.... I'm not sure where these messages are anymore. Not on my server. I read them and dropped 'em.... > > I agree with this sentiment and feel that with a small amount of rework, > Roger's posted disclaimer could be used on the group, together with a > short entry in the RFD. I will look further once I have read the rest > of the posts. Personally speaking, I'm against using Roger's disclaimer. I'm against any disclaimer, really, but I'd consent to Ginger's because it's a wide and general statement that doesn't split theological hairs that people might be burned at the stake over.... I'm willing to compromise and include a disclaimer but not Roger's or the other one.... > > Regards, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Advice sought Henrietta Thomas wrote: > I was born and raised a Christian. It is said that this man Jesus > once told his followers that if they went into a town and were not > accepted, they should shake the dust of that town off their feet > and go elsewhere. I suggest you do the same. Do not worry > about your enemies and what they might do, but rejoice in your > new-found friends. Thank you, again, for your good and wise advice.... (With the sound of much stomping, wiping, and shaking of feet....) > > Henrietta -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:10 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Sharon Bouchard wrote: > We can't cross-post from Discuss from here, because it's understood > that it being a Baha'i-only list, stuff that's there -- stays there. That seems to be exactly what certain quarters want.... > > So those of us actively involved in the discussion have to spend even > more time on our efforts, because we can't just write one post that > "says it all" and fire it where it needs to be. And there are > somewhat different threads going on that require somewhat different > responses. Care to tell us about those "different" threads and responses? > > It's a mess. I can think of no way around it. > > >Anyone who wishes to take part in the discussion will come to > >news.groups. > > If only that were so. I share your sigh having observed them for about the last two months.... I'm sure it's even worse now.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:14 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD pointers? Guy Macon wrote: > > I suggest a *non crossposted* pointer to each newsgroup, with followups > set to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai. That's one newsgroup > under "Newsgroups:" and two (n.g & a.r.b) under "Followup-To:". This is what I did in posting pointers for the October 20th RFD and I believe it's what Chris did for November 5th one too. Separate postings for each with Followups to news.groups,arb. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:32 AM Subject: 30,000 YES votes? If Usenet can muster 30,000 NO votes when needed, is it too much to hope for a thousand or two YES votes? What were the strategies used during the 30,000 vote? Are they relevant and justifiable now for this vote? All the civilized world turned out for a good cause during World War II though some may have thought it was ganging up.... Is not this analogy appropriate? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 6:41 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: failure notice] Sorry about you getting caught again by my SPAMGUARD (tm) In message <346C3E5A.5B28@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I'm willing to compromise and use Ginger Glaser's wording >for a disclaimer but no passage from the writings or from >the UHJ. I have already written my reasons to NG explaining why I do not want to use the letter of the UHJ. >No FAQ. It would be hopelessly biased. As Guy has >suggested, anyone can post one to their hearts >content if they wish anyway. I suggest that there will eventually be a FAQ, whatever we do, but only after the group has settled down. If the CBs want to post one, well that's there prerogative, and there is nothing we can do about it, though I shall probably not read it myself. >I'm considering allowing in two or three other >people as proponents. I think they should be >non-Bahais. Opinion? My only comment is "Don't over-do it". Too many would slow down consultation considerably. Actually, I feel that the consultation that has taken place since the posting of the 2nd RFD has been generaly of a high caliber and has probably routed out the remaining problems with teh RFD. But, see my comments at the end of this post. >Also, later, not sooner, is in the best interest of the >proposal passing. I'm now in no rush. Quite the reverse. >Things are calming down on at least news.groups despite >the contemptible attack on me from the BCCA. You may be right. In consultation we are told to look to the right time for a vote. It is that time when all the concerns of those present have been addressed and before the group starts to tire of the consultation. On NG we are not yet at that stage. On B-D we have reached that stage. However, the number of posts on B-D have dropped dramatically and the subject is being dropped. In fact, I have been responding to some posts by private e-mail rather than posting on the group. This, again has had benefits. >What kind of fanaticism are they posting over there now? Fred, people have been listening (reading?) and noting what we have been posting, especially Sharon's posts which have been very supportive. Apart from one or two people who feel that they want to protect the Faith, there is little antagonism and little interest any more. Fred, my main concern is that this group be formed and to that end I am prepared to compromise on some things. However, I am concerned that some suggestions (not just from you Fred) would reduce the chances of getting it off the ground. I know you do not want to kow-tow to fanatics, and I agree, there are some out there, but there are ways of wording things that are less likely to antagonise these people and more likely to sway the switherers. Over the last week a number of opponents of TRB have changed their minds and are tentatively supporting it. To antagonise these peple would be the death of the group. It is the "floating voters" we have to win over, not the fanatics who will never change their stance. There have been a number of suggestions made which I summarised in my long post -- there are not many of them but I felt it to be essential not to antagonise anyone by ignoring them. None of these proposals would harm the group and accepting them shows a willingness to listen and act on advise given in good faith. I stand by the comments I made in that post and feel that to use those suggestions would increase the chances of TRB succeding. In the end, thse are suggestions for a charter that will soon be forgotten. Almost certainly they will not affect the group once it is up and running. Unfortunately, in an effort to get back to you quickly, I agreed about increasing the number of proponents (I still do) and agreed that Mike McKenny might be suitable to come on board. I guess it is too late now to say it, but having thought more about this, I feel that he would reduce, considerably, the chances of this group succeding. I can see your reasons for taking him on and certainly can sympathise with him. However, Mike HAS upset a lot of people in the past, even though he did get a degree of sympathy at the time of his removal from the membership of the Faith. However, the current aim that we should be looking at is getting the maximum number of YES votes and the minimum number of NO votes. At this time nothing else matters (apart from being honest with the world). If you really want more people, and as I wrote I am in agreement, though I do not feel it to be essential, then the people you should gat are those who are respected by the Baha'is. Go ahead and ask Jim Riley, or Russ, but I doubt they would do it. Any other non-Baha'i would probably not make sense. But what we have to do is get LESS NO votes and MORE yes votes an to do it by any honest means available. I have found that by expressing concern about and addressing the negative aspects of an unmoderated group, I have changed attitudes. I have found that by emphasising that this is a public group for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, people have changed sides. It can be done, but it has to be done carefully. In many peoples' minds you are NOT the evil force that you mentioned in your post to NG. They are putting those thoughts behind them. Don't bring them back. I am sorry if some of this offends you, but I work (work work, that is) in an environment where honest diplomacy has to be used several times a week to keep things running smoothly, and I find that this works far better than any of Robert's Rules on Managment. Anyway, I have had my say. Please go back and read my long post summing up suggested changes and ask yourself honestly for each one, Will this help the vote for TRB? If the answer is yes, then go for it, even if you don't like it. Finally, Fred, I assure you I will not pull out of being co-proponent whatever you decide, that would definitely affect the vote. However, I will make it clear where I disagree. Remember, the whole purpose is to form TRB. Wishing you all the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:02 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Henrietta Thomas wrote: > Don't accept ballots that don't have the quote marks indicating that > the voter got his ballot from a Usenet newsgroup. :-) This sounds like an excellent way to distinguish votes from email lists versus those who actually read Usenet. Can it be done and will it work? Would David Lawrence and the UVV accept weeding out email votes? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:06 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? Lynn Diana Gazis wrote: > > Trimming alt.religion.bahai because my site unfortunately doesn't > recognize it. > > Frederick Glaysher (FG@hotmail.com) wrote: > : If Usenet can muster 30,000 NO votes when needed, > : is it too much to hope for a thousand or two YES votes? > > : What were the strategies used during the 30,000 vote? > : Are they relevant and justifiable now for this vote? > > Are you talking about rec.music.white-power? Sending out unsolicited > bulk emailings, some of which were *still* circulating a year after the > vote closed (and may be circulating now, for all I know). Setting up > bots on IRC channels to urge people to vote NO. Burdening a poor > votetaker with, not only so many thousands of votes, but more hate mail > than any votetaker should have to put up with for volunteering to run a > vote. > > IMO, these strategies were never justifiable in the first place, and > certainly aren't justifiable now. Yikes! No, I wouldn't want to do any of that.... Oh, what a world.... > > As it stands, I'm probably going to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai, > this time around. > > Lynn Gazis-Sax -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:15 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai re More Proponents Henrietta Thomas wrote: > Fred and Chris are co-proponents now. Fred has said he wants > to treat Chris as an equal partner and have joint consultations on > decisions. I expect he will do the same with anyone else who signs > on as a proponent. I certainly will. We've agreed on most things and when we haven't on very minor things we've just left them as is in the RFD. That's all there is to the "stalemate" I mentioned earlier. The RFD would remain as is.... I think such a system would work with several proponents. It works, usually, for the UN Security Council which is a good model.... (Revealing my own politics here again, I know....) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Conflict of interest: us.* vs Big 8? (was More proponents? > : Anyway, to return to the subject, I would hate to see you go, Henrietta. > > Yes, please don't go. > ---guy You know I'll miss you, Henrietta.... But you know what you have to do.... Thanks for all your help and advice! -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:39 AM Subject: Re: More proponents? Henrietta Thomas wrote: > > In news.groups on Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:06:40 -0500, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > [snip]... > > >Since many Bahais seem to continue to perceive me as > >the center of all evil, I suggest adding 2 or 3 > >more proponents. I have only two suggestions about > >doing so. One, they should be non-Bahais since Chris > >and I are both Bahais and there should be some > >representation of other views given the unmoderated > >span of opinion hoped for on trb. Two, all decisions > >or changes should be by unanimous agreement or stalemate, > >with each person having veto power, sort of like the UN > >Security Council, if you will.... > > Point 1 - I agree. > Point 2 is not really necessary because this is not a moderated > group. The proponents can, of course, give guidance to the group > and help move things along, but what happens to the group in the > end will be up to the active posters there. > > >Nominations? I'd like to invite Michael McKenny who > >used to be a Bahai but is no longer since his explusion > >from the Bahai Faith in July of this year. Since he's > >not a covenant breaker, but a non-Bahai with some sense > >of the importance of free speech and individual conscience, > >I think he'd be a good possibility that even Bahais should > >not object to. > > Michael McKenney would be an excellent choice. You and > he and Chris should work together very well. > > >I would greatly appreciate it if one or two "news.groupies" > >who have closely followed the discussion all along would > >consider helping out. Guy Macon, Henrietta Thomas, Russ > >Allbery seem to have a strong grasp of the complex and > >volatile issues involved.... Others? Ginger Glaser? > > It would not be appropriate for me, because I am involved > with the us.* hierarchy now, and will be shortly leaving news. > groups on conflict of interest grounds. > > I don't know how the others would feel, so I will not speculate, > but I do think it would be nice to have a woman on your team. > Perhaps Sharon Bouchard would be willing to add her name > to the RFD. I'd be happy to have her as a co-proponent. But she's a Bahai and you acknowledge above (1) that additional proponents should be non-Bahais. Michael McKenny is fine with me. Chris seems to think he would elicit more NO votes from some Bahais.... To my mind, THOSE Bahais would be doing the wrong thing and need to accept Michael as a legitimate and acceptable proponent who has a right to express his own thoughts and convictions.... The UHJ didn't give any instructions to "shun" him as with covenant breakers, so there shouldn't be any reason to vote NO just because he was "expelled" from the Bahai Faith in July.... > That is all you really need -- 3 or 4 good people who support > the group. I would not try to "recruit" more than that. But if anyone > else volunteers, by all means let them help out, and do not worry > whether they are Bahai's or not. If Sharon and Michael are both willing, I'd be happy to welcome them aboard. That leaves though the very real need for someone who has no Bahai past and brings an unquestionable fairness and integrity to the issues.... Since Henrietta has other demands to attend to that now leaves Guy Macon and Russ Allbery. How about it? One of you willing to bear the burden? We'll all try to make it as easy as possible for you so that you only need to check in once in a while if you prefer.... Any other suggestions? > > Henrietta -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Conflict of interest: us.* vs Big 8? (was More proponents? Russ Allbery wrote: > I think Henrietta provides a lot of valuable input in news.groups on a > regular basis, and despite the fact that I don't agree with her a lot of > the time, I'd rather that she not stop doing that. I don't see any > conflict of interest here at all. Addendum to my other message on this thread: Jonathan Grobe issued the message that created alt.religion.bahai and has from time to time provided crucial help and advice in a highly impartial manner. I did mention him earlier because I assumed as someone attached to the group-mentoring process he would be too busy, but I don't know.... He, Henrietta, Russ, and I think Guy Macon, are all people of impeccable credentials here if one of them would be willing to balance out the overloaded boat of Bahais.... The only other person I can think of is David Lawrence.... > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 11:00 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: talk.religion.bahai on news.groups Continuing discussion of the proposed unmoderated newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is still taking place on news.groups, and, since it is for all points of view, I invite you and other Muslims to look in on it and contribute if you so wish. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 11:03 AM Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Jim Riley wrote: > > In article <346B091C.72D1@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >And one third to one half the readers of soc.religion.bahai > >read it through email.... > > Have you considered operating a gateway for talk.religion.bahai? No, I haven't. Actually, it's probably a good idea. I tried to set up an email gateway for alt.religion.bahai in April and May, in order to allow more people to access it after the defeat, but it was so complicated it was beyond my abilities.... Anyone capable and willing to do it for talk.religion.bahai when it passes.... > > -- > Jim Riley -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 11:08 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai ? the platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote: > > In <64hjms$6s6@nntp02.primenet.com> rdetweil@primenet.com (Richard C. Detweiler) writes: > > [...] > > >It is a very emphatic injunction. Baha'is can destroy no books. In > >particular, we are admonished to leave the enemies of the Faith to their > >own devices and not interfere in any way. > > Isn't that an effecive argument against casting a 'NO' vote? Is there > anyone who voted no in the CFV care to comment on it. I do believe book burning is a fair analogy with NO voting.... Both deprive people of information, knowledge, and others' opinions and attempt to shape the consciences of others in a knowingly unjust and premeditated manner.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 11:48 AM Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; Chris@baha.demon.co.uk; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: 2nd & 3rd RFDs Today is the 11th day of the 2nd RFD. That leaves a possible 49 days in which to discuss fully the 2nd RFD and decide on additional changes and proponents. That would take us to January 4, 1998. We could then submit the 3rd RFD shortly before then and receive an additional 60 days of discussion up to March 4, 1998. At that time, we could have the Call For Votes (CFV) which would be the usual 21 days for voting taking us to March 25, 1998. I believe this time frame is in the best interest of talk.religion.bahai. It would allow Roger Reini, Chris Manvell, and Sharon Bouchard and anyone else so inclined more time with in which to explain to Bahais on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere the usual and commonly acceptable reasons for Usenet voting. If misunderstanding was the problem for the last NO vote, I then believe more time is necessary for educating people on the reasons for voting either way.... It seems to me fair that Roger, Chris, and Sharon might want to email the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association (BCCA) Coordinating Committee Secretary at and request that they lend a hand in helping to explain to their fellow Bahais the legitimate reasons for voting. Have they not recently stated they have no desire to affect adversely the vote on talk.religion.bahai? Let them prove it. Surely, a Bahai committee created to help Bahais on communicate through computers should be highly interested in Bahais preserving the proper voting procedures on Usenet and not undermining them in any way.... I'd also like to suggest Roger, Chris, and Sharon consider emailing the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) at and request they clarify their recent response to Roger since many on the private Bahai mailing lists have construed it to support voting NO on talk.religion.bahai in contravention of respecting other people's consciences. Indeed, other Bahais and non-Bahais might also wish to email the UHJ to express their views on what has been transpiring on Usenet for nearly a year now.... I make these suggestion because I believe they are in the best interest of the proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I believe we have become bogged down in endless little adjustments to relatively trivial phrasings of the RFD that are symbolic of the much more profound problems affecting Bahais when it comes to freedom of speech and individual conscience. And I make these suggestions now because I do not believe it is fair for Bahais to subject Usenet to this ordeal, undermining its system of polling user interest in a proposal and tearing it to shreds for political and religious reasons. If a fundamental change of attitude cannot be demonstrated by more Bahais in fairly short order, I believe more, not less, time is needed to educate them. To quickly bring the RFD now or soon up for a vote would be unfair to the 100+ who simply want a place to discuss a topic of their choosing without interference or imposed bias. I suppose if even more time is needed we could always submit a 4th RFD.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 11:48 AM Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; Chris@baha.demon.co.uk; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: 2nd & 3rd RFDs The Baha'i Studies List: Today is the 11th day of the 2nd RFD. That leaves a possible 49 days in which to discuss fully the 2nd RFD and decide on additional changes and proponents. That would take us to January 4, 1998. We could then submit the 3rd RFD shortly before then and receive an additional 60 days of discussion up to March 4, 1998. At that time, we could have the Call For Votes (CFV) which would be the usual 21 days for voting taking us to March 25, 1998. I believe this time frame is in the best interest of talk.religion.bahai. It would allow Roger Reini, Chris Manvell, and Sharon Bouchard and anyone else so inclined more time with in which to explain to Bahais on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere the usual and commonly acceptable reasons for Usenet voting. If misunderstanding was the problem for the last NO vote, I then believe more time is necessary for educating people on the reasons for voting either way.... It seems to me fair that Roger, Chris, and Sharon might want to email the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association (BCCA) Coordinating Committee Secretary at and request that they lend a hand in helping to explain to their fellow Bahais the legitimate reasons for voting. Have they not recently stated they have no desire to affect adversely the vote on talk.religion.bahai? Let them prove it. Surely, a Bahai committee created to help Bahais on communicate through computers should be highly interested in Bahais preserving the proper voting procedures on Usenet and not undermining them in any way.... I'd also like to suggest Roger, Chris, and Sharon consider emailing the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) at and request they clarify their recent response to Roger since many on the private Bahai mailing lists have construed it to support voting NO on talk.religion.bahai in contravention of respecting other people's consciences. Indeed, other Bahais and non-Bahais might also wish to email the UHJ to express their views on what has been transpiring on Usenet for nearly a year now.... I make these suggestion because I believe they are in the best interest of the proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I believe we have become bogged down in endless little adjustments to relatively trivial phrasings of the RFD that are symbolic of the much more profound problems affecting Bahais when it comes to freedom of speech and individual conscience. And I make these suggestions now because I do not believe it is fair for Bahais to subject Usenet to this ordeal, undermining its system of polling user interest in a proposal and tearing it to shreds for political and religious reasons. If a fundamental change of attitude cannot be demonstrated by more Bahais in fairly short order, I believe more, not less, time is needed to educate them. To quickly bring the RFD now or soon up for a vote would be unfair to the 100+ who simply want a place to discuss a topic of their choosing without interference or imposed bias. I suppose if even more time is needed we could always submit a 4th RFD.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 1997 9:42 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I am sure that Baha'u'llah Himself is with us. > > I don't say that lightly but as a result of > > experiences (spiritual encounters). All that is > > needed is for us to be as fair and truthful as we > > possibly can and He will provide strength. > > God, I wish I could believe it anymore.... Any > ideas on how to handle the BCCA's attack on me? Have you found out any more on exactly what they think they're doing? If a forged post was the cause of the trouble, they should be withdrawing their action instantly. I think one has to play them at their own game: if they're polite, be politer; be sickeningly syruppy! I don't see much mileage in trying to persuade the masses. Something important is missing from the Baha'i believers, but only an odd person here and there will have the courage to say it. (Most others have become inactive, which leaves the field open to the sycophants.) My personal opinion is that the faith is very near that point when, Baha'u'llah said, God would take away their chance and raise up another in their stead. I also have come to believe that God's purpose is only to find out who, as individuals, have good and true souls. What we _try_ to do, not what we accomplish, is the important thing, so don't get too discouraged. Maybe we can chat at more length once the current commotion has died down. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 3:01 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai - lost message Dear Fred, I noted last night that there was a message coming down the line from you but it did not appear in my newsreader. Please could you send it again? Thanks. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 7:30 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Ron House wrote: > > God, I wish I could believe it anymore.... Any > > ideas on how to handle the BCCA's attack on me? > > Have you found out any more on exactly what they think > they're doing? If a forged post was the cause of the > trouble, they should be withdrawing their action > instantly. I posted nothing negative and inflammatory to bahai-discuss; "bahai@hotmail.com" did and it was openly recognized as forgery by everyone but the bcca.... I think one has to play them at their > own game: if they're polite, be politer; be > sickeningly syruppy! It's not in my personality.... You might be on to something though.... I don't see much mileage in > trying to persuade the masses. Something important > is missing from the Baha'i believers, but only an > odd person here and there will have the courage to > say it. (Most others have become inactive, which > leaves the field open to the sycophants.) My > personal opinion is that the faith is very near > that point when, Baha'u'llah said, God would > take away their chance and raise up another > in their stead. > > I also have come to believe that God's purpose is > only to find out who, as individuals, have good > and true souls. What we _try_ to do, not what we > accomplish, is the important thing, so don't get > too discouraged. Maybe we can chat at more length > once the current commotion has died down. Why wait? At the moment though, the push is to nibble away at the RFD laying the groundwork for future tirades against anyone who doesn't conform, is how I see it.... How would you like to be a co-proponent? > > -- > Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because > people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 7:32 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - lost message Not sure which on it would be. Check on news.groups. Chris Manvell wrote: > > Dear Fred, > > I noted last night that there was a message coming down the line from > you but it did not appear in my newsreader. Please could you send it > again? Thanks. > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Go to to read the REVISED RFD for > talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 7:53 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai ? the platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote: > > In <64nvlk$nj8$2@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> ijf16@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Isaac Freeman) writes: > > [...Voteing No equiverlent to Book Burning?...] > > >It would be an effective argument against trying to cancel a particular > >post, or prevent a particular person from expressing their views. > > Understandable. May I ask what you would consider rmgrouping quiverlent > to? This is an important question since Mr. Isaac Freeman threatened to attempt to remove alt.religion.bahai from news servers shortly after it was created by Jonathan Grobe in April. He had actually stated online that he had consulted with others on how to do it. Seems and feels like book buring to me.... > -- > Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. > Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. I do not reply to mungged > Support NoCeM https://www.cm.org/ addresses. > I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 8:26 AM To: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: lost your draft revisions I've been reloading Internet Explorer 4 and yet jumping back and forth to Netscape Gold for last few days.... Lots of problems, one of which is my losing your posting of revisions to the RFD. Can you email me a copy or repost it to news.groups crossposting to arb just in case. In the future, perhaps we should always email cc's to each other of anything we especially what the other to see.... Okay? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 1:57 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai - lost message In message <34702B34.1B32@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Not sure which on it would be. Check on news.groups. > >Chris Manvell wrote: >> >> Dear Fred, >> >> I noted last night that there was a message coming down the line from >> you but it did not appear in my newsreader. Please could you send it >> again? Thanks. >> >> All the best, >> >> Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >> Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai >> -- >> NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >> Go to to read the REVISED RFD for >> talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. Dear Fred, If it was a message you sent to n.g anyway, I will ahve read it. I just wondered if was a resonse to my last (long) e-mail to you. All teh best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 1:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: lost your draft revisions In message <347037FA.16CB@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I've been reloading Internet Explorer 4 and yet jumping >back and forth to Netscape Gold for last few days.... >Lots of problems, one of which is my losing your posting >of revisions to the RFD. Can you email me a copy or >repost it to news.groups crossposting to arb just in >case. In the future, perhaps we should always email cc's >to each other of anything we especially what the other >to see.... Okay? Willco later this evening. My newsreader does not have the facility for posting to e-mail AND news groups so will get it back off the newsgroup and forward it. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 8:38 AM Cc: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Chris, I finally found your message after losing it on my server but now another crisis has arisen. My wife has fallen on our stairs and severely twisted her ankle. After making her breakfast in bed, I have to take her out to the doctor's this morning. As soon as I can I'll answer all these suggestions. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 9:54 AM Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: 2nd & 3rd RFDs Roger Reini wrote: > I don't know if the discussion needs to go out *that* far, but I do > agree with a longer period of time before the CFV. The issues are being > considered more rationally now, and I can see opinions beginning to > change. Some who had been planning to vote NO are now likely to > abstain, and they have said so. > > [requests that I or another Baha'i e-mail the BCCA coordinating > committee and the Universal House of Justice] > > IMHO, I don't believe such steps are necessary. First of all, I believe > the House was quite clear when it said it was not going to comment on > the newsgroup voting process. Second, as I said above, opinions are > changing. I think the current discussions are having an effect. IMHO, > they will continue to have an effect. Is there anything specific that ought to be explained or discussed on news.groups or bahai-discuss to further understanding of the usual reasons for voting on Usenet proposals? Or anything else for that matter.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 9:54 AM Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: 2nd & 3rd RFDs The Baha'i Studies List: Roger Reini wrote: > I don't know if the discussion needs to go out *that* far, but I do > agree with a longer period of time before the CFV. The issues are being > considered more rationally now, and I can see opinions beginning to > change. Some who had been planning to vote NO are now likely to > abstain, and they have said so. > > [requests that I or another Baha'i e-mail the BCCA coordinating > committee and the Universal House of Justice] > > IMHO, I don't believe such steps are necessary. First of all, I believe > the House was quite clear when it said it was not going to comment on > the newsgroup voting process. Second, as I said above, opinions are > changing. I think the current discussions are having an effect. IMHO, > they will continue to have an effect. Is there anything specific that ought to be explained or discussed on news.groups or bahai-discuss to further understanding of the usual reasons for voting on Usenet proposals? Or anything else for that matter.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 10:00 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Henrietta Thomas wrote: > What are we going to talk about for the next 49 days? I think "continuing education" is much in order, but that's just my opinion.... The problem is "evaluation." That is about > six weeks. I would suggest posting the 3rd RFD on the 1st of December, > allow a month for discussion, then go for the vote in the 1st week of > January. I realize a lot of people will be on vacation next month, but > I think the RFD is pretty well finalized anyway. So if the 3rd RFD is > posted _before_ people go off on their vacations, they will still have > plenty of time to think things over. Waiting til March is much too long. It's a long time but to my mind if, as many people have claimed, the NO voters didn't understand the nature of interest poll voting, I think it a matter of fairness to provide them with sufficient time to grasp the basics.... And though, as Guy stated, we don't want people to get bored and not be around when it's time to vote. I'd appreciate hearing from some people who chose to vote NO last time. Is this reasonable? What would you suggest? > > Henrietta > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 10:28 AM Subject: SRB's RFD Can someone post a link to soc.religion.bahai's current RFD? It seems that that might be something we should look at as well. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 1:34 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG In message <34718C55.8A4@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, I finally found your message after losing it on my server >but now another crisis has arisen. My wife has fallen on our >stairs and severely twisted her ankle. After making her breakfast >in bed, I have to take her out to the doctor's this morning. As >soon as I can I'll answer all these suggestions. Dear Fred, I am most sorry to hear about Pamela's (is that the right name?) accident. Please wish her well from me. I will think of her in my prayers. Best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 11:02 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: TRBahai SRB Moderation Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron House wrote: > > I also have come to believe that God's purpose is > > only to find out who, as individuals, have good > > and true souls. What we _try_ to do, not what we > > accomplish, is the important thing, so don't get > > too discouraged. Maybe we can chat at more length > > once the current commotion has died down. > > Why wait? At the moment though, the push is to It's just a time problem for me. I really hadn't budgeted for all the time I'm putting into this. > nibble away at the RFD laying the groundwork for > future tirades against anyone who doesn't conform, > is how I see it.... How would you like to be a > co-proponent? I'm happy to help any way I can, but I don't think my name as such will get any votes, as I am not part of the Baha'i establishment. You need someone on the inside. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 11:07 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2nd & 3rd RFDs] Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > If you can support any of this in some way on news.groups, > it would help.... > It seems to me fair that Roger, Chris, and Sharon might want to > email the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association (BCCA) > Coordinating Committee Secretary at > > I sent them an e-pistle. > I suppose if even more time is needed we could always submit > a 4th RFD.... There are no changes I think you need make, unless you make a big one. Have you considered an autobot moderator? As with talk.origins, a computer program that is run by someone like you or me, that simply rejects multiple postings and posts recognised as spam (e.g. titles containing words like "make", "money", and "fast" in that order :-) ). I don't think we need worry about _physical_ interference by Baha'is. Anything they do will be by the rules; we just have to get the rules right. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 9:30 AM Cc: Chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Chris Manvell wrote: > > My comments: > The version of the 2nd RFD I posted to Fred read, "All followup > discussion should be posted to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai." > This was changed slightly either by Fred, or more likely David, to read, > "All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religi > on.bahai." > I feel that this follows the spirit of Usenet by emphasising the role > of news.groups as the PRIME place for discussion. We cannot stop > discussion in other areas but, strictly speaking, it should also go to > NG. By David Lawrence. He made a few other minor ones for technical reasons. > How about changing the second sentence to read, "The newsgroup will be > part of the talk.* hierarchy, which has to date been used most commonly > for unmoderated groups." Anyone come up with a better suggestion that > can be put in one sentence of less than 2 lines? The change is fine with me. > However, although this might buy more votes, I am rather uncomfortable > about using a message from the House to "sell" a product. Certainly it > should be taken into account, but I feel that it would be using the > House unethically to put it in the RFD. The message is available for > all to read on my web site at . I agree with you. The message can be reposted any time anyone desires to do so. > >Ginger Glaser wrote: > >> > >> This group is for open discussion of issues realting to the Baha'i > >> faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the Baha'i Church. (my > >> apologies if I chose the incorrect term) > > Fred wrote > >Well, maybe you have a good point. We don't use the word church. > >No problem. Just Bahai Faith will do it though. Ginger's sentence > >seems hard to make sense.... I'm willing to go with it. Chris, what > >you think? Others? > > I like it. Perhaps "...in any way by any Institution of the Baha'i > Faith"? May be a little hard for non-Baha'is to grasp though. > "Baha'i Faith" would be fine by me. I think it would be a great > addition. Good idea Fred. > > My comments: I am all for it. I suggest that anyone reading the group > would get to know about the Institutions pretty quickly. > I will add: "This group is for open discussion of issues relating to > the Baha'i Faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the any of the > Institutions of the Faith." to the RFD. As an unmoderated newsgroup, it ought to be obvious and self-evident to anyone that by definition the postings do not represent institutional opinion. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept Ginger's passage with light emendation of "Church" to "Baha'i Faith." I will veto any language, for historical reasons, that include the phrasing not endorsed in any way "by any institution of the Baha'i Faith." I should be forthright about why. The author of those words threatened to rmgroup alt.religion.bahai shortly after it was created by Jonathan Grobe, and I won't accept a single word from him in the RFD. Ginger's passage should be used only after carefully comparing it for similar language in the RFD/charter for soc.religion.bahai. Compromise requires both sides meet half way. It's time for others to show they can be conciliatory too.... > Chris on FAQ: > Also it must be of such a nature that it cannot be used as a > whipping post for any poster, Baha'i or non-Baha'i. The FAQ, if there > is one, could be totally independant of any disclaimer, the latter being > very short and quickly read. > > Roger Reini attempted a FAQ in early August. It was soundly rejected > by people other than myself as biased. I'm against an official FAQ, > though people may post one to the newsgroup any time they wish after > it's passed. In terms of a disclaimer, I would like the following sentence to follow immediately after Ginger's: "This disclaimer is not intended to be used as a 'whipping post,' by or against Bahais or non-Bahais, after the passing of the RFD." This sentence would address my concern that such an intention lies behind the desire for a disclaimer. Chris wrote: > > Even if TRB does not > >make it, I feel that things have improved considerably this time round. Why should the RFD not make it? There are no valid and honest reasons for voting NO. At this point, I believe that claiming anything in or out of the RFD as a valid reason for voting NO is untenable. The only reason anyone might still be considering to vote NO remains one of political and religious passion against the expression of other people's consciences. I believe the posting statistics should remain as is up to October 20, 1997, the day the 1st RFD was posted. That would avoid including in the count discussion that took place in news.groups. On behalf of myself and Chris, if he is in agreement, I would like to invite Sharon Bouchard, Ron House, and Michael McKenny to be proponents, if they're willing. I think the offer always stands too to Guy Macon and Russ Allbery. Each proponent would have veto power over any changes to the RFD, which would then remain as is--that is, either the status quo, or unanimous agreement. If it's good enough for the UN, it's good enough for me.... It seems to me that all the little changes to the RFD are really substitute agruments for the underlying adversion of many Bahais against speech they can't control.... It was for such reasons that I added to the 2nd RFD "Readers are asked to observe standard . . . voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation." I now think this should be emphasized even more so. I would therefore like to include the following passage by Russ Allbery in the RFD immediately after that sentence, if he does not mind: "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." (Message-ID: ) I also urge Roger Reini, Sharon Bouchard, and Chris Manvell to share this passage by Russ, with his permission, with Bahais on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. It should greatly aid the augmentation of their understanding of Usenet voting. It seems to me that the following revision to the 2nd RFD might be reconsidered against Henrietta Thomas' version of it: "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 do not have her original, never compared this draft to it, feel uneasy about it, and yet have not had the chance to search for it on www.dejanews.com. Ultimately, it seems to me, tinkering with the RFD, like the making of books, has no end.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 9:34 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Carol Bowie wrote: > > Unfortunately, I am leaving for an extended trip in late December and will > probably not have access to a computer. Is there ay way I can vote before I > leave. Absentee voting? Is it possible on a Usenet proposal? Anyone know? > > David Bowie -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 9:47 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:53:23 -0500, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > > [on rmgrouping] > > > >This is an important question since Mr. Isaac Freeman threatened > >to attempt to remove alt.religion.bahai from news servers shortly > >after it was created by Jonathan Grobe in April. He had actually > >stated online that he had consulted with others on how to do it. > >Seems and feels like book buring to me.... > > > > No, he didn't, not as I recall. He did mention the subject and may > have asked a rhetorical question about rmgrouping, but at no time did > he threaten to do such a thing. I'd be happy to repost his original message, allowing others to decide for themselves, but evidence seems not to be permitted.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 12:43 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Sword Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 303: "Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace." Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 329-330: "He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence." I find Baha'u'llah's Words strikingly similar in tenor to those of Roger Williams, the seventeenth-century American advocate of religious conscience: from The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience: "Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries, and that they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's spirit, the word of God." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 12:43 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Sword Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 303: "Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace." Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 329-330: "He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence." I find Baha'u'llah's Words strikingly similar in tenor to those of Roger Williams, the seventeenth-century American advocate of religious conscience: from The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience: "Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries, and that they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's spirit, the word of God." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 12:43 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Sword Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 303: "Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace." Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 329-330: "He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence." I find Baha'u'llah's Words strikingly similar in tenor to those of Roger Williams, the seventeenth-century American advocate of religious conscience: from The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience: "Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries, and that they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's spirit, the word of God." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 1:10 PM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai A Bahai wrote: > >>>The book-burning argument would apply directly if there were no other > >>>newsgroups for discussing the Baha'i Faith, but that is not the case. "As a token of grace from God, the Revealer of this Most Great Announcement, We have removed from the Holy Scriptures and Tablets the law prescribing the destruction of books." Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 28. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 1:12 PM Cc: bahai-faith@bcca.org Subject: Destruction of Books The tenth Glad-Tidings "As a token of grace from God, the Revealer of this Most Great Announcement, We have removed from the Holy Scriptures and Tablets the law prescribing the destruction of books." Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 28. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)[SMTP:billh@samoatelco.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 1:03 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: Government Dear Mr. Glaysher: Many thanks for your quotation but I saw no point to it except to advertize the RFD for trb. The moderators have decided that srb is not the place to discuss this issue and a moderators' posting will be made shortly explaining the reasons. If you would like to resubmit the quotation in support of your views on the Bahai Faith, without the reference to the RFD to trb, I will be happy to post it. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: "SRB" Subject: Government Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:59:05 -0500 Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 22-23: "In every country where any of this people reside, they must behave towards the government of that country with loyalty, honesty and truthfulness. This is that which hath been revealed at the behest of Him Who is the Ordainer, the Ancient of Days." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 8:36 AM To: bahai-st; BCCA; UHJ Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG The Baha'i Studies List: Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I'm forwarding this message to you because I believe the BCCA has undermined your recent message to Roger Reini regarding your acceptance of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups, attacked me personally, depriving me of fundamental Bahai rights of free speech and religious conscience. I ask that you investigate the BCCA's motives for interferring in the Usenet vote on talk.religion.bahai. Permit me to say with all respect that your emphasis on conscience and voting does not apply properly to Usenet proposals which are actually considered merely interest polls. This message contains a statement by Russ Allbery, someone highly versed in Usenet procedures, who points out such political abuse of the system by bloc voting NO will only further tarnish the image of the Bahai Faith. As it is not my wish to see this happen, I ask you to consider issuing a statement that in no uncertain terms requests that Bahais respect the worldwide voting system established on Usenet and not subvert it by another massive bloc vote. I shall now be periodically forwarding to you messages that I believe might help inform you of the subversion by Bahais of the Usenet voting system. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <3472EA07.39C8@hotmail.com>... >Chris Manvell wrote: >> >> My comments: >> The version of the 2nd RFD I posted to Fred read, "All followup >> discussion should be posted to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai." >> This was changed slightly either by Fred, or more likely David, to read, >> "All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religi >> on.bahai." >> I feel that this follows the spirit of Usenet by emphasising the role >> of news.groups as the PRIME place for discussion. We cannot stop >> discussion in other areas but, strictly speaking, it should also go to >> NG. > >By David Lawrence. He made a few other minor ones for technical >reasons. > >> How about changing the second sentence to read, "The newsgroup will be >> part of the talk.* hierarchy, which has to date been used most commonly >> for unmoderated groups." Anyone come up with a better suggestion that >> can be put in one sentence of less than 2 lines? > >The change is fine with me. > >> However, although this might buy more votes, I am rather uncomfortable >> about using a message from the House to "sell" a product. Certainly it >> should be taken into account, but I feel that it would be using the >> House unethically to put it in the RFD. The message is available for >> all to read on my web site at . > >I agree with you. The message can be reposted any time anyone >desires to do so. > >> >Ginger Glaser wrote: >> >> >> >> This group is for open discussion of issues realting to the Baha'i >> >> faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the Baha'i Church. (my >> >> apologies if I chose the incorrect term) >> >> Fred wrote >> >Well, maybe you have a good point. We don't use the word church. >> >No problem. Just Bahai Faith will do it though. Ginger's sentence >> >seems hard to make sense.... I'm willing to go with it. Chris, what >> >you think? Others? >> >> I like it. Perhaps "...in any way by any Institution of the Baha'i >> Faith"? May be a little hard for non-Baha'is to grasp though. >> "Baha'i Faith" would be fine by me. I think it would be a great >> addition. Good idea Fred. >> >> My comments: I am all for it. I suggest that anyone reading the group >> would get to know about the Institutions pretty quickly. >> I will add: "This group is for open discussion of issues relating to >> the Baha'i Faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the any of the >> Institutions of the Faith." to the RFD. > >As an unmoderated newsgroup, it ought to be obvious and self-evident >to anyone that by definition the postings do not represent institutional >opinion. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept Ginger's passage with >light emendation of "Church" to "Baha'i Faith." I will veto any >language, for historical reasons, that include the phrasing not >endorsed in any way "by any institution of the Baha'i Faith." I should >be forthright about why. The author of those words threatened to >rmgroup alt.religion.bahai shortly after it was created by Jonathan >Grobe, and I won't accept a single word from him in the RFD. >Ginger's passage should be used only after carefully comparing it >for similar language in the RFD/charter for soc.religion.bahai. >Compromise requires both sides meet half way. It's time for >others to show they can be conciliatory too.... > >> Chris on FAQ: >> Also it must be of such a nature that it cannot be used as a >> whipping post for any poster, Baha'i or non-Baha'i. The FAQ, if there >> is one, could be totally independant of any disclaimer, the latter being >> very short and quickly read. >> >> Roger Reini attempted a FAQ in early August. It was soundly rejected >> by people other than myself as biased. I'm against an official FAQ, >> though people may post one to the newsgroup any time they wish after >> it's passed. > >In terms of a disclaimer, I would like the following sentence to follow >immediately after Ginger's: "This disclaimer is not intended to be used >as a 'whipping post,' by or against Bahais or non-Bahais, after the >passing of the RFD." This sentence would address my concern that such >an intention lies behind the desire for a disclaimer. > >Chris wrote: >> > Even if TRB does not >> >make it, I feel that things have improved considerably this time round. > >Why should the RFD not make it? There are no valid and honest reasons >for voting NO. > >At this point, I believe that claiming anything in or out of the RFD >as a valid reason for voting NO is untenable. The only reason anyone >might still be considering to vote NO remains one of political and >religious passion against the expression of other people's >consciences. > >I believe the posting statistics should remain as is up to October 20, >1997, the day the 1st RFD was posted. That would avoid including >in the count discussion that took place in news.groups. > >On behalf of myself and Chris, if he is in agreement, I would like >to invite Sharon Bouchard, Ron House, and Michael McKenny to >be proponents, if they're willing. I think the offer always stands too >to Guy Macon and Russ Allbery. Each proponent would have veto >power over any changes to the RFD, which would then remain as >is--that is, either the status quo, or unanimous agreement. If it's >good enough for the UN, it's good enough for me.... > >It seems to me that all the little changes to the RFD are really >substitute agruments for the underlying adversion of many Bahais >against speech they can't control.... It was for such reasons that >I added to the 2nd RFD "Readers are asked to observe standard . . . >voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its >creation." I now think this should be emphasized even more so. >I would therefore like to include the following passage by Russ >Allbery in the RFD immediately after that sentence, if he does >not mind: > >"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." >(Message-ID: ) > >I also urge Roger Reini, Sharon Bouchard, and Chris Manvell to share >this passage by Russ, with his permission, with Bahais on >Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. It should greatly aid the augmentation >of their understanding of Usenet voting. > >It seems to me that the following revision to the 2nd RFD might be >reconsidered against Henrietta Thomas' version of it: "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 do not have her original, >never compared this draft to it, feel uneasy about it, and yet have not >had the chance to search for it on www.dejanews.com. > >Ultimately, it seems to me, tinkering with the RFD, like the making >of books, has no end.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 10:39 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:08 AM To: bahai-st; BCCA; UHJ Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge The Baha'i Studies List: Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following opinions in your consultation on the subversion of the Usenet voting system by Bahais. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ------ Notarius wrote in message <19971113031729.22106.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > > >Frederick wrote: > >>> You are being banned from all lists by one central authority. >>> Its like being banned from all official newspapers by a >>>national authority. > >>Yes. Ex cathedra or something like it. No warning, no trial, >>no evidence, no appeal, just Mr. Glaysher's a miscreant.... >>BE GONE! > >There is no appeal? >I know almost nothing about BCCA, if the members are appointed, >elected or selfappointed. Is it placed under an institution or not? >National or international? > Frederick Glaysher WROTE: >>I believe their act is clear evidence of how worried some >>Bahais are now that the proposal for talk.religion.bahai will >>pass.... Since BCCA is quasi-official Bahai "committee," it >>makes me wonder too about the sincerity of the message from >>the Universal House of Justice: one message for the public, >>another on back channels? I'm not sure but it worries me and >>erodes my trust and confidence.... > >I think the message was genuine and that the reaction of BCCA is >personal. >If I were responsible I would be worried about what is going on >in BCCA. You cant have an important organisation react >emotionally. It destroys credibility. > >I understand very well that you are upset. You still have the vote >and you are not excommunicated - you are hit by a very new and peculiar >punishment: in this electronic age you are cut off from communicating >with your fellow Baha'is. You are banned from lists you dont even subscribe to, >including lists that dont exist yet. >This happens at a time when you are controlling your emotions >in every article I have seen. > >I am rather certain that this decision will come back and haunt >the BCCA without any effort on our part. >Spiritual laws are set in motion. Quite meaningless, in my opinion, if people are yet again treacherously deprived of the expression of their God-given conscience.... > >notarius - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 11:10 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 10:33 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Banned from BCCA lists (was Re: Mark ...) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 10:43 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 10:54 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 11:01 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 11:19 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:47 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: SRB censored: 11-21-97 The Baha'i Studies List: Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following message from a moderator of soc.religion.bahai in your consultation on censorship and the BCCA. In this message, the moderators are actually censoring the very Words of Baha'u'llah Himself! Permit me to say I've used the signature file below for at least a month or two. Many Bahais and non-Bahais have such signature files that refer to databases or websites reflecting their interests. I consider it an unconscionable act of censorship to prevent my posting to soc.religion.bahai, part of the "country" of Internet, merely on such a basis. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ----begin message posted to SRB: Dear Mr. Glaysher: Many thanks for your quotation but I saw no point to it except to advertize the RFD for trb. The moderators have decided that srb is not the place to discuss this issue and a moderators' posting will be made shortly explaining the reasons. If you would like to resubmit the quotation in support of your views on the Bahai Faith, without the reference to the RFD to trb, I will be happy to post it. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: "SRB" Subject: Government Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:59:05 -0500 Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 22-23: "In every country where any of this people reside, they must behave towards the government of that country with loyalty, honesty and truthfulness. This is that which hath been revealed at the behest of Him Who is the Ordainer, the Ancient of Days." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 10:49 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: SRB censored: 11-21-97 has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:39 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: SRB censored: 11-21-97 Frederick - The purpose of Baha'i Studies is deepening and Baha'i Studies. As I have recently said with regard to another subject, I really don't want to see this list become contentious and critical. You wrote: >In this message, the moderators are actually censoring the >very Words of Baha'u'llah Himself! That statement may or may not be true. I read what the soc.religion.bahai moderators wrote to you, and I feel that it can be interpreted in various ways. Regardless, such accusations are contrary to list guidelines (flaming, criticism, etc.). ------ ;-), Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (net paging) * (913)469-8500, x3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (my 3 sites) https://cyberjunkie.com/lists (Divine Philosophy Society's 5 email lists) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:47 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher gets it backwards again! The Baha'i Studies List: Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider this message in your consultation on talk.religion.bahai and the BCCA. -----Message begins: ?@?.com wrote in message ... Please don't feel you need to hide your identity. I won't personally threaten you as Bahais on Bahai-Discuss have threatened me.... >In article <653vht$ivl@news2.zippo.com>, Frederick Glaysher > writes >>Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >No point in putting this here as you know they are not in this >newsgroup. There is every point in posting this message to news.groups. Continuing Bahai censorship has left me with no other option but to appeal directly to the Universal House of Justice. >> >>Please consider the following in your consultation on the BCCA. >> > >Who says they are consulting on the BCCA? All I can say is that I have requested that they do so. >Quite frankly Fred, and you can read this as it is said, You disgust me >with your prejudices against the Persians, you disgust me in the way >that you name call the Universal House of Justice, You disgust me in the >way that your ego has to prevail, you disgust me that you call yourself >a Baha'i, you disgust me that you take an innocent statement and turn it >into a diatiabe against yourself. Not withstanding that you may have >moderated your language recently, it is obvious that the same ole Fred >is still here. Even if any of this were true, none of it would be a sufficient reason to deprive others of their God-given right to freedom of conscience and opinion by subverting the "government" of the land of Usenet and by "book-burning" talk.religion.bahai through another massive NO vote. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 11:49 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Fred Glaysher gets it backwards again! has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 12:44 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG n message <880201391.0615501.0@hm1.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Chris wrote in message ... >>>I would agree with Fred here. I know he has already suggested a time >>scale, which I feel is rather too long. I suggest that we get a 3rd RFD >>(and definitely final) out early December and then go for the vote early >>in the new year. > > >Well, I'm not sure a long time scale is not in the best interest of >talk.religion.bahai. It seems to me, as long as huge numbers of >Bahais on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere are continuing to >threaten a bloc NO vote, that there should be no vote, but >rather efforts to enlighten them about the proper nature of Usenet >voting and respecting others' rights to newspapers and books >that Bahais don't burn.... Thanks for the message and sorry about the delay in answering. This morning, just after posting to news.groups, my system went down terminally. Since then I have gradually been building it up again but just cannot get W95 to get out of VGA. Anyway, I just got my newsreader up and running and seem not to have lost any data. Actually, on B-D, TRB is a dead duck. Three have been one-or-two posts during the week but they are very low key and are based around one individual who does not wish the group to be formed. Responses from Roger and Donald are well worded. I still intend to post my own response to this person's arguements on news.groups (I have her permission) but today's disaster has been totally freaking me out. As to the time scale, I think that people will just get bored with the discussion. Also, it is giving more time for people to start up negative arguements (such as the book-burning thread that is wandering around NG. Anyway, I have to stop. I have a Feast to go to followed by the host's house warming party. Then I have to find out why I cannot get SVGA in spite of having the correct drivers. I'm sorry to be such a nuisance but I depend on my PC for so much publishing work and the whole thing has gone to rats. Well, at least I am on line again, even if it is with an old version of the software and with no www access. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 10:23 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:18 AM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan@umich.edu Subject: Invitation The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I'd like to respond to the issue of more proponents for TRB. I'm very sorry for the busyness elsewhere which kept me from replying adequately to this topic previously. I think the idea of more proponents is great. I believe it is a very good, if not essential, step to de-personalize this proposal through the addition of names of others seeking to create this newsgroup. In the context of what's gone on inside the various Baha'i lists, I think that, notwithstanding all the dedicated work and the valid USENET reasons that Frederick Glaysher has to be the proponent if ten or twelve other people from the whole spectrum of views could be added that would be great. I am posting this to Talisman, Irfan and Bahai-st, as well as to several individuals who may consider it a personal invitation. Since I don't know how one officially becomes a proponent (by invitation from existing proponents?) then, I do not claim any authority to appoint proponents. However, I hope those indicating an interest will be accepted. My understanding is this depends on the ability of the proposal to proceed relatively as is, i.e. an unmoderated nresgroup on this topic and on the understanding that, if passed, by definition ("unmoderated") there is no restriction on the material posted. I have already received the agreement of one person who has been following this discussion on news.groups. Elizabeth Holden just told me that I could mention she is willing to be a proponent. She has known the Baha'i Faith since at least the 70s and has never been a Baha'i. Since I posted to some Baha'i lists and even communicated with the Universal House of Justice quite articulately and courteously presenting views that are quite challenging for some Baha'is, I may appear, from USENET perspective, almost an ideal proponent. However, I believe that in this specific case the proposal may benefit more from the addition of a number of other names, especially including some who voted NO last time. One point I'd like to get across is that no one individual owns this proposal. Anyone will be able to post what s/he wills. The only reason why Baha'is would be in the minority on the newsgroup would be through the choice of Baha'is not to post. In effect, this time devoted to discussing the proposal is to communicate this fact, as well as the changed circumstances of the clarification by the Universal House of Justice in its recent letter that it is not opposed to the unmoderated expression of views on the Baha'i Faith in cyberspace. I hope this post achieves its purpose and that a number of people will step forward to demonstrate the validity of that letter from the Universal House of Justice and show an understanding of the nature of USENET newsgroups by accepting to be proponents and by securing the formation of a quite reasonable proposal. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:23 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: talk.religion.bahai The Baha'i Studies List: Sorenson wrote: >>Who [UHJ] says they are consulting on the BCCA? Chris Manvell wrote in message <4TZSnaAIh$d0EwWH@baha.demon.co.uk>: >They probably do at times. The only thing is (as I have been led to >believe) they do not consult on, and respond to, open letters. Fine. Suit themselves. But they can't claim they didn't know before hand about a massive NO vote by Bahais denying others of free speech and religious consicience.... spitting on these Words by Abdu'l-Baha: "These [see pages 88-91] are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty there of produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. As I've said before, given the action of the BCCA, I find it worrisomely possible that some may think the UHJ itself has one policy statement for the public, while using the BCCA and other such channels to further its true intentions.... If another massive NO vote takes place, I believe the UHJ will be responsible for having allowed it to happen.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 10:26 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:42 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai The Baha'i Studies List: Sharon Bouchard wrote in message <3479e458.8609823@news.cyberatl.net>... >Members of the House probably do have Usenet access, as the World >Centre in Haifa has good Internet access, generally speaking. But I >seriously doubt if members of the House have the time to use Usenet. > >There are many more things going on in the world than this one little >tempest in a teapot. The House has the job of guiding a global >community of around 7 million people, from every cultural group >imaginable, and the community is growing, er, swiftly to say the >least. Their task is anything but small. Far from being Emerson's tempest in a teapot, the battle over talk.religion.bahai has caught the attention of hundreds, if not thousands of people, and Bahais know it.... > >I consider it a sign of their efficiency and diligence that they >answered the query concerning unmoderated conferences as quickly >as they did, given everything they have on their plate. > >But if for some reason the House needed to consider this specific case >more fully, they certainly have the resources and means to educate >themselves throughly on all the issues. (They wouldn't even have to >go outside Haifa to find assistance -- I can think of two people >offhand who are experienced online users who would be very capable of >handling any research that was required, and I don't know that many >people.) Is Mark Towfiq one of them? > >Given what I've seen the House do in the past, I would be surprised if >they now made some specific recommendation. The House is not given to >micromanagement, ime. I used to think this but have noticed when it was convenient Roger Reini received a reply in TWO WEEKS.... A reply that has apparently left a loophole through which another massive NO vote campaign is being mounted.... And then when it appear troublesomely possible that too much opinion was going in favor of trb, the BCCA just happened to stir things up again EIGHT weeks after I reposted a few messages to news.groups allowing technies and others to see just how massive the opposition was on private Bahai lists.... I don't believe it would be "micromanaging" now for the UHJ to state to Bahais they should not undermine the Usenet voting system again out of misplaced religious zealotry and "book burning" impluse.... It would be an act of justice and respect for the right of other human beings, Bahais and non-Bahais, to publish their own newspapers, news.groups, etc., whatever analogy one wishes to use.... > >And it is, after all, one of the Baha'i principles that individuals >should investigate the truth for themselves. Making the equivalent of >micro-rulings on things like this would not exactly give us room to >"see with our own eyes," would it? Bahais have no right to deny other people the right to investigate the truth for themselves, and yet that is precisely what the RESULTS of another NO vote would do.... Such a ruling would help OPEN the eyes of Bahais to the true and weighty nature of free speech and religious conscience of which the Bahai Writings are so full of glowing expressions of respect. It would prove to the non-Bahai world that such words actually mean something to Bahais.... It would finally prove it to many Bahais, including this one.... - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 10:45 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:46 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai The Baha'i Studies List: Thank you Notarius for stating so much so clearly.... It seems to me that your observations should also be considered by the UHJ.... Notarius wrote in message <19971125181117.16054.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > > >Sharon wrote: >>Given what I've seen the House do in the past, I would be >>surprised if they now made some specific recommendation. The >>House is not given to micromanagement, ime. > >>And it is, after all, one of the Baha'i principles that >>individuals should investigate the truth for themselves. Making >>the equivalent of micro-rulings on things like this would not >>exactly give us room to "see with our own eyes," would it? > > >This is indeed another way of looking at the issues. >The House should not need to make all decisions. >But we noticed that the BCCA didnt produce a clear statement, >so the House had to do it for them. >Another case in point is Fredericks expulsion from the lists. >Nobody seems to know where to send an appeal. Frederick sent it to the House, >which caused another debate, to say the least. >A small addition, saying; send appeals to the NSA, for example, >would have been a great help. >We have different signals coming from the BCCA and the House, >which has made me wonder what is going on. >I am not sure the decisions on the micro level are in harmony >with the policy of the macro level. > >This could be a reason for the House to take a look at the decision >of the BCCA and possibly investigate the organisation in a wider context. >TRB is no small matter any longer. The coming vote is potential dynamite. >I have had good reasons for printing "NOTS" in arb. >One is to remind the Baha'is of the situation in ars, where another kind >of NOTS are printed. >I cannot stress enough how sensitive the net is to censorship >attempts and what an enormous loss of PR a NO victory could be. >Please take this as good advice coming from a nym.alias.net account. >This situation alone makes it necessary for the House to have a clear policy >and to enforce it. >If the BCCA had handled the TRB vote correctly in the spring all confusion >had been avoided. But they didnt and the confusion is now blamed on one >individual. > >notarius > > - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 10:49 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:49 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai The Baha'i Studies List: It seems to me the now often made comparison with Scientology's suppression of free speech and conscience shoud be weighed in carefully during any consultation regarding what is taking place by Bahais against talk.religion.bahai.... Guy Macon wrote in message <65f973$acq$2@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <19971125181117.16054.qmail@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote: > >>I cannot stress enough how sensitive the net is to censorship >>attempts and what an enormous loss of PR a NO victory could be. > >This person speaks my mind. After the scientologist's attempt to >shut down alt.religion.scientology, the PR effects either way will >be large. A lot of people are watching this, and some of them will >use a massive no vote as a club to beat on bahaism with. > - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 9:35 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: The Sword of conscience The Baha'i Studies List: Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 303: "Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace." Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 329-330: "He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence." I find Baha'u'llah's Words strikingly similar in tenor to those of Roger Williams, the seventeenth-century American advocate of religious conscience, who was much persecuted by those who styled themselves in possession of the last word of truth in the Massachusetts Bay Colony: from The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience (1644): "Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries, and that they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's spirit, the word of God." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 11:41 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: The Sword of conscience has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 11:17 AM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: criticism of others or blaming the House of Justice The Baha'i Studies List: Folks, I really do not like doing it again. However, given the negative tone of recent messages, I am calling an end to discussions of talk.religion.bahai on this list (Baha'i Studies). In any case, this list is for the purpose of deepening and Baha'i studies. And I do not see the connection with this subject - except on a very superficial level. ------ Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (page me) * (913)469-8500, x3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (my 3 sites) https://cyberjunkie.com/lists (Divine Philosophy Society's 6 email lists) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 11:22 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai I have already asked you not to post these sorts of flames against the BCCA, etc. Please do not do it again. I am just one person (not a committee - like the BCCA), and, therefore, I can take unilaterial action (with the possible cooperation of my employer, which hosts this list) against your postings, etc. ------ Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (page me) * (913)469-8500, x3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (my 3 sites) https://cyberjunkie.com/lists (Divine Philosophy Society's 6 email lists) ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 6:04 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Removed Since you have still not responded to me, I am removing you from the list. ------ Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (page me) * (913)469-8500, x3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (my 3 sites) https://cyberjunkie.com/lists (Divine Philosophy Society's 6 email lists) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 1997 11:38 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Personal Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Since this message concerns the suspension of the topic of Talk.Religion.Bahai from the Bahai-st list it is being posted to news.groups and a copy sent to the list owner of Bahai-st. I'm very sorry that I've been so busy lately, and I expect that to continue into the future. I have posted my assessment that while you have devoted enormous energy towards the establishment of Talk. Religion.Bahai, the actual achievement of that goal, in practical terms, will greatly benefit from the widening of the base of proponents, especially through the addition as proponents of people who previously voted NO. In light of the letter from the Universal House of Justice openly stating it is not opposed to an unmoderated newsgroup such additions are now possible. Frankly, I am not convinced from the response that many of those who voted NO last time took the Universal House of Justice at its word, nor that a massive NO vote will be averted this time. I think it is possible to promote the message in that letter from the UHJ and to convey clearly the negative perception of the Faith that will be caused by Baha'is insisting, despite this letter, on the suppression of Talk.Religion.Bahai. I, personally, believe that it would not look much better from the outside were the Universal House of Justice to go further and actually instruct Baha'is to vote YES. Nevertheless, one thing seems to be clear, that the manner and tone of your posts on this topic provide opportunity for a great number of people to see only red, to disregard everything except the issue of personality. When I first entered the famous Talisman list in February 1996, the very first thing I noticed was flaming. I did not recognize the famous names of long-serving believers. I did not have an opportunity to consider the issues these devouted souls considered so important. I saw only that they were going after other individuals, hurling upon others accusations, using words addressed to the person rather than to the issue. And, so, that was what I addressed in my first posts. How different things might have been had there been no flaming and no attention to personalities, but rather to matters of interest. It has been expressed clearly to me that this is the case with your posts on the issue of BCCA and Mark Towfiq. The listowner of the Baha'i-St list has suspended the topic of Talk.Religion.Bahai from his list and when I queried this, even mentioning the bad PR such a move could have, I was told it was the potentially litigious nature of remarks you were making which caused him to remove the topic of TRB as an acceptable one for discussion on his list. As this took place right after I had tried to open up more discussion on TRB on that list, and personally invited a number of individuals across the spectrum of Baha'i views to become proponents (see the news.groups copy of this post; a copy was also sent to you) I feel less than thrilled. I really don't have the kind of time that seems to be needed to secure the formation of TRB. However, I did find someone, Elizabeth Holden (I believe she is one of those who voted YES last time), willing to be a proponent. Also, I invited several others, as I mention above. Maybe something will come of that. However, I believe it would make things a great deal easier were you to leave it up to others to promote TRB, and especially were you to refrain on the Baha'i lists from raising issues related to individuals. It is my understanding that were you to state an intent to avoid posting to Bahai-st references to individuals (to Mark Towfiq and the BCCA, especially) the suspension of the topic of TRB on the Bahai-st list would be lifted. Also, the owner of Bahai-st seems quite upset that his private posts to you about this seem not to have been answered. Nothing in the above is meant to detract from my awareness of the enormous energy you've devoted to the establishment of Talk. Religion.Bahai. I think that is highly noteworthy. It's just that I really feel that a majority of Baha'is provided the opportunity to consider this in an environment they define as flame free will support the proposal. And that may best occur in the absence of any personal remarks about Mark Towfiq and other individuals. I hope the above has made some sense and is taken in the very positive light in which it was intended. Fare very Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 1997 11:39 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Personal Please Reply Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. The posting of the below message to Bahai-st is being held up as the listowner has not yet received a committment from you to avoid posting personal comments related to Mark Towfiq. Could you kindly send such a committment to: owner@sociologist.com and cc a copy to me. If you have any reason not to do this, I'd be happy to hear it. Also, don't hesitate to convey to me your views on anything I post, if you're not in agreement, as well as to send me any posts to news.groups you feel I ought to respond to. I'd appreciate your forwarding of my comments to ARB and any where else in Baha'i cyberspace (though kindly NOT to any Baha'i authorities, including the Universal House of Justice) you think they may help. Blessed Be, Michael Greetings. If you are well, it is well. This is a personal invitation for you to join in the process of ensuring the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai. Could you kindly acknowledge receipt of this message. There may be some confusion between the Baha'i principles of consultation which the Baha'i Faith has been trying to implement for more than a hundred years and the principles of Baha'i elections. Baha'is are supposed to consult on all matters. They are forbidden to conduct elections in the normal manner, in the sense of party politics, nominations and campaigning. The formation of Talk. Religion.Bahai is not an election, whatever the profile of its most ardent proponent. It is a consultation. Among the principles of Baha'i consultation is the one that all members of the Spiritual Assembly or consultative body deliberating upon an issue are to express their views, and one of the tasks of the Baha'i chairperson is specifically to invite those who are silent to speak. For large numbers of Baha'is to sit silent, to refrain from speaking on an issue and then to vote only occurs when there are many people, as at a national convention, and very little time. Contrary to that situation USENET's process for the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai is long enough to permit each voter to follow Baha'i principle and fully express her/his views. Inasmuch as there is a letter on this issue of Talk.Religion. Bahai from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice stating that (contrary to the impression many had at the time of the first vote on this issue) the Universal House of Justice is not opposed to the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai, and urging the following of Baha'i principles in the process of the establishment of the newsgroup and in the free expressions of individual views to take place after it is formed, inasmuch as among Baha'i principles are the sharing, in a flame-free manner, of the full range of understandings by each member of a consultative body, here is an opportunity for each Baha'i intending to participate in the vote on Talk.Religion.Bahai to contribute to the consultation on the issue. The letter from the Universal House of Justice asked that Baha'i principle be followed. Another principle of Baha'i consultation is that everyone focus on the ideas and views, the suggestions and recommendations which emerge from the discussion, and that Baha'is refrain from becoming entangled in the personalities engaging in the consultation. Here, in the very process of establishing what will be potentially the greatest venue in cyberspace for demonstrating to large numbers of people what Baha'is have to offer to a world quite divided and distracted by issues of personalities rather than substance, is the opportunity to show the extent to which the spirit of the Baha'i Faith and all this attention paid by Baha'is to the peaceful and principled deliberation on issues has born fruit. Recently, some Baha'is in cyberspace have become caught up in an apparent confrontation between Baha'i principle and Baha'i authority. Among Baha'i principles is the one which states that while full expression of views and even the clash of varied opinions lead to truth, the means and the purpose of the Baha'i Faith is the attainment and the demonstration of harmony. This letter from the Universal House of Justice clearly underlines the harmony, the full agreement between Baha'i authority and Baha'i principle on this matter of the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai and the principled expression of unfettered views on that newsgroup and elsewhere in cyberspace. This message is being shared with news.groups in accordance with USENET procedure. It is also being posted to the Baha'i lists of Talisman and Baha'i-st. I invite you to distribute it widely in Baha'i cyberspace. I strongly encourage you ever to keep in mind Baha'i principles, including full participation in consultation and excluding flames in any reply. I hope the above has made some sense and will have very beneficial and agreeable results. Fare ever Well, Michael. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:14 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Personal Please Reply Greetings, Frederick. If you are well, it is well. I just got this as I'm about to log off and go out for the day. I'll read it and get back to you tomorrow, if not tonight. May things continually get better. fare very Well, Michael > >Michael, bahai-st, Foster, I believe, sent me a message last Wednesday >around 9:00am his time that he was removing trb from a topic of discussion >and considering removing me too. About 5:00pm his time he sent me a >one liner stating because I had not answered him, he was removing me. >I was not online until AFTER 5:00pm my time and AFTER receipt of >his 2nd message.... I immediately anwered both stressing I had no >idea he was upset at me for anything really, which is the truth! That was >late WED. I returned from vacation this morning to discover both messages >had bounced. I just forwarded them to him this morning, Sunday 9:45am. > >Don't know what to say. They're all kicking me off and blaming me.... >Refusing to listen to my side of it.... You saw what took place on Bahai-d. >It can't be coincidence.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > >-----Original Message----- >From: McKenny Michael >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 10:39 AM >Subject: Personal Please Reply > > >>Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. >> If you are well, it is well. >> The posting of the below message to Bahai-st is being held up >>as the listowner has not yet received a committment from you to >>avoid posting personal comments related to Mark Towfiq. >> Could you kindly send such a committment to: >> owner@sociologist.com and cc a copy to me. > > I will agree to refrain from mentioning him on Bahai-St since >I now know Mark Foster wishes me to do so. That's entirely within >his right as owner of the list, and I am willing to comply. I do >apologize again to him if I posted anything that has upset him. >I really had not realized how he felt about these matters and may >even have misperceived his own views on such things. > >Again, I've been on vacation since late Wednesday when I >emailed him twice only to return now and discover they both >BOUNCED! My email program picked up apparently the >wrong address to reply to.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai-st #2 (Fw: Returned mail: User unknown) >Sorry. Actually, I don't recall receiving or reading a message >from you to this effect. Have you emailed recently on this. >I haven't received anything from you. Again, my apologies if >I've said something you don't like. Just expressing my point of >view.... I'm not certain about precisely what you don't want to hear >about the BCCA, but, in general, I shan't post anything >regarding it, if that's your intention.... I'm really quite surprised.... Frederick - My main concern is not having a libel suit directed against the college (or me). I wrote you over a week before my first message to you. Then, when you posted a statement directly against Mark Towfiq, after thinking about for a few hours, I decided to remove you from the list. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the proposal for talk.religion.bahai, which I actually feel quite positive about. However, thank you for your explanation. I will place you back on the list. Still, I do not feel that discussions of the newsgroup proposal really fall under the guidelines for the list (deepening, Baha'i studies, etc.) - except in a very vague sense. Regards, Mark ---------- From: major@johnco.cc.ks.us[SMTP:major@johnco.cc.ks.us] Sent: Monday, December 01, 1997 1:52 PM To: fglaysh@hotmail.com Subject: Welcome to bahai-st -- Welcome to the bahai-st mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "major@johnco.cc.ks.us" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe bahai-st fglaysh@hotmail.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: [Last updated on: Sat Apr 27 18:37:57 1996] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *BAHA'I STUDIES LIST INFORMATION* Welcome! Please familiarize yourself with the contents of this document. It contains information on subscribing (and unsubscribing), posting messages, and the purposes, objectives, and guidelines for the list. At the end of this paragraph, please write "I agree," followed by your own name, if you agree to follow the guidelines contained in this document (which were the result of consultation), and retain this document for your own records. It is generally a good idea to create a separate folder or a directory on your hard drive in which you keep the information files files on each of the lists you subscribe to. You may need this information in the future. Disclaimer: Although the list owner is a member of the Association for Baha'i Studies, the list itself is not in any way affiliated with that association. The list is also not affiliated with the Institute for Baha'i Studies (at the U.S. Baha'i National Center). *Subscriptions/Unsubscriptions/Majordomo Commands* Both subscriptions and unsubscriptions are automatically processed by a majordomo listserver. All subscribe/unsubscribe commands must be sent from the account you wish to subscribe (or unsubscribe). To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send the following command in the body of a message (not in the subject line): subscribe (or substitute unsubscribe) bahai-st end To: major@johnco.cc.ks.us If, instead, you wish to subscribe to the Baha'i Studies Digest (meaning that you will periodically receive a single message containing all the recent postings made to Baha'i Studies), substitute "bahai-st-digest" for "bahai-st" (without the quotes) in the above. Please be sure that your email inbox or mail reader has sufficient capacity to accommodate long messages before subscribing to the digest. For additional information on commands available on the majordomo listserver, send the following command in the body of a message (not in the subject line): help end To: major@johnco.cc.ks.us None of these commands (subscribe, unsubscribe, help, etc.) wlll work if sent to the distribution address (bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us) or if placed in the subject line. *Posting Messages* To post a message to the Baha'i Studies list, send it to: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us *List Purposes* The fundamental purpose of the Baha'i Studies list is the consultative investigation of truth/reality, using the Baha'i Teachings as its spiritual foundation. In light of the list's purposes and objectives, it is not a discussion/announcement list in the usual sense. This list is a professional research activity of its owner, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., who is on the sociology faculty of Johnson County Community College. We are using the computer resources of that college. Formally, the Baha'i Studies List is a project of The Reality Sciences Fellowship [sm], founded and directed by the listowner, and is an extention of his work as academic director of the Foundation for the Science of Reality. The Reality Sciences Fellowship is sponsored by the Foundation for the Science of Reality. *List Objectives* 1. To act as a forum where people of diverse backgrounds can contribute to the knowledge base of our virtual moral community. The Baha'i metaphysic of unity in diversity teaches us how truth results from implementing the *technology* of Baha'i consultation (meaning that consultation is an application, or technology, of the principle of unity in diversity). 2. To become, potentially, an online institute, a "think tank," an information resource center for the Baha'i community, and a spiritual colloquium - a place where, hopefully, we can cooperatively search for answers to specific questions and where the Baha'i Teachings can be applied to concrete situations. 3. To have ongoing threads (continuous email discussions) on a variety of topics related to Baha'i studies, deepening, and Baha'i scholarship. The term "Baha'i scholarship" is used in a general sense to include the scholarly activities of, potentially, all Baha'is and not *only* academic Baha'i scholarship (i.e., the academic application of the Baha'i Teachings to the sciences - physical, biological, behavioral, and social, the humanities, etc.). *List Guidelines* Note: In all the below guidelines, the list owner is not pronouncing on the rightness or wrongness of a particular line of discussion. The attempt is to define forms of discourse which might serve to promote a spirit of consultation. The list owner is grateful for all the feedback he has received in developing these guidelines. 1. The principle of Baha'i consultation, applied to Baha'i Studies topics, is the watchward of this list. Arguing, in a negative way, is strongly discouraged. (Although, arguing, in the sense of presenting reasoned arguments, is desirable.) To be more specific, flaming (attacking others), gossip, backbiting, slander, libel, name-calling (conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, fascist, anti-intellectual, etc.), character deprecation, partisan political discussion, a narrow and divisive use of labels (such as scholar and intellectual), etc. are contrary to the spirit of the list. The means to discover truth is unity, realized in a clash of differing opinons, not of conflicting personalities. Kindness and tolerance for the views of others are heartily recommended. Moreover, the listowner's vision for the Baha'i Studies list (which seems to have been supported by consultations among list members) is that we become a workshop for applying the art of a loving, non-judgmental, full, frank, honest, courteous, and tactful consultation to Baha'i studies/scholarship and deepening. It would seem that such an approach would contrast markedly with the more adversarial form of communication so common today. 2. Please avoid posting messages which oppose, or question, the actions, policies, or members of a Baha'i institution. Messages stating that a particular administrative decision should be changed, which attempt to find a way to have it reconsidered, as well as discussions of appeals or petitions to administrative bodies, regardless of their nature and possible merit, are discouraged. Offers of service, as with the "think tank" concept, are certainly encouraged. 3. It is recommended that posters refrain from arguing about whether the Central Figures, the Guardian, or the House of Justice are infallible in one or more areas. The list owner is not *necessarily* saying that such questions have no merit, only that he does not wish to see the Baha'i Studies list get bogged down with these issues. Certainly, consulting on ways to more fully understand the nature of truth or infallibility may be productive areas for consultation. However, postings stating that particular statements or decisions do not fall under a Personage's or an institution's jurisdiction of authority or infallibility are discouraged. 4. It is preferable *not to quote extensively* from the postings of others. Please quote only as much as is *reasonably necessary* to respond to what someone has written. 5. Please try to keep messages to the point. Chatty messages, messages which would be more properly send to a single individual (rather than to the whole list), small talk, simple "thank you," "I agree," or "me, too" postings without additional substance, etc. are discouraged. *Making the List a User-Friendly Place* The Baha'i Studies list is open and unmoderated. However, all posters (Baha'is, members of other faiths, or those of no particular faith) are expected to abide by these guidelines and to agree, basically, with the list objectives. If problems arise, the list owner or, he hopes, other members of our virtual community, may raise possible general spiritual principles, preferably without reference to personalities, and suggest that we consult on resolving them from the standpoint of the Baha'i Teachings. On the other hand, the list owner reserves the right to remove people who, in his view, after having been cautioned through private email, continue to repeatedly act contrary to list guidelines and make our experiences, in this little corner of cyberspace, less than satisfactory. Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Baha'i Studies Listowner mfoster@johnco.cc.ks.us ---------- From: Jean B. Hunter[SMTP:jbh5@pitbull.cornell.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:34 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai ( Suggestions received -- VERY LONG) In article <65uc6s$cel@news2.zippo.com>, "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > > Other suggestions? > Hi Fred -- Only what Chris, Notarius, and all your other supporters keep reminding you -- try to control the expression of your anger, fears and suspicions as you respond to other participants on a.r.b. One of the wonderful things about an unmoderated Baha'i newsgroup is that it offers to all the participants, not only a handful of moderators, the discipline of following 'Abdu'l-Baha's example of civil speech and loving kindness. I've seen your messages at their very worst and their very best. It seems to me that you must strive enormously to compose messages that are accepting of other people's viewpoints and forgiving of their limitations, and I want you to know how much I appreciate them when I see them -- they make me feel that Baha'u'llah's love is working through you and is indeed stronger than your intense frustrations with the t.r.b. campaign and the BCCA. Remember Abdul-Baha's prayer beginning "O Lord, refresh and gladden my spirit. Purify my heart. Illumine my powers". This is one of my favorite prayers, and I use it whenever I get depressed or frustrated -- no, make that second one "pissed off". To me, "Refresh" means "cool down" and if I say it, it cools off some of the anger. "Gladden my spirit" helps me think of the blessings I have already. You have blessings too -- your intelligence, your persistence and your idealism. Hang in there Fred! By "Purify my heart" I think Abdu'l-Baha meant that we should try to erase all traces of prejudice (pro or con) and ill will from our hearts, so that we have room for the light in "Illumine my powers". I think Abdu'l-Baha is telling us that if we can purify our hearts God will illumine our powers, that is, make them bright and visible and powerful to spread light over everything they touch. Do you remember that old teaching song from the 70's? "Be like me, follow me, be as I am -- Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha". The people who are worried about t.r.b. are suffering from a lack of faith, fearing that the Baha'is on t.r.b won't be able to follow Abdu'l-Baha's example. Well, we'll never follow it perfectly, but we learn by trying. It's very easy to criticize their lack of faith, just as it is easy for them to criticize your lack of diplomacy. But it's fruitless to expect the other guy to change first; really, we have control only over our own actions, not the actions of others. On the first t.r.b. vote I voted "abstain". At this point I have about a 70% probability of casting a "yes" vote. (The other 30% would be another abstain). Still got those fears, but I'm working on them. It would be presumptuous of me to tell you "change your behavior to make me more certain to vote yes" -- because we can change only our own behavior, right? Actually it doesn't make any difference to me -- you are who you are and t.r.b. won't change either your lovable or your annoying qualities -- but there are a lot of reactive people out there in net land, who are going to be influenced by your behavior rather than your core message, and your behavior will be a litmus for them at voting time. Stay cool Fred, I'll be checking into ARB from time to time to read posts from my favorite participants, and will certainly be there when it's time to vote. Best regards, Jean in Ithaca -- Jean Hunter, Ithaca, NY, USA, Earth, Universe, the Mind of God Please delete the "pitbull" spam guard dog in my e-mail address before replying. Thanks! ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 1:46 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > How about being a coproponent? You won't have to do anything > really if you don't want to.... > I am happy to be a co-proponent (as long as I don't have to do anything :-) ). But I wonder whether it is in the interests of the campaign, considering that I am in many places considered a renegade. I leave it up to you. Best wishes, -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 2:19 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) In message <881066954.0510412.0@hm3.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher writes >>Chris wrote in message ... >>> >>>More than happy to welcome Sharon on board. >> >>I'm not sure she's consented.... Perhaps she's had a change of >>heart. What do you say, Sharon? > >Ron House has, however, agreed to become a co-proponent. >He's worried he be held a renegade by some.... Unfortunately, >that's possible, always, it appears, given the passions involved. > >I'm willing to welcome him aboard. Chris, what about you? > >Michael McKenny has bowed out, I think? I feel a diversity of >opinion would be good and still wish he would consider it.... >Sharon Bouchard and Ginger Glaser too.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at Dear Fred, Ron is outspoken but talks (writes?) a lot of sense. I suspect he treads on a few toes but I think he would be good to have. Sharon and Ginger I would love to work with. (I AM getting through my work backlog, gradually, though I do also have rehearsals and AGMs etc. And - arrrgh - I lost all my Baha'i Christmas card files in the meltdown.) I'm sorry if Mike's dropped out. We may have had our differences in the past but I feel he's an OK guy, though I still feel that there are too many Baha'is that still see him as untouchable. That's their problem, of course, though it does reflect back onto Mike, unfortunately. It would also, probably, increase the NO vote against TRB. FYO, there have neen NO posts on Baha'i-Discuss on the subject of TRB for over a week. I guess the subject just burned itself out -- certainly there was no evidence of posts being censored or anything like that. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Dean Betts[SMTP:fdbetts@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 6:59 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: anonymous remailers At 12:33 AM 12/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > >I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a >wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has >been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening >letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is >second hand, appears to indicate that irfan postings were included in the >indictment and had been archived and sent to the accused as proof of his >perfidy. This use of Irfan messages (if my information is correct) strikes >me as completely unethical (surprise!) on the part of the Baha'i >authorities, since they can only have gotten the messages from someone who >is on irfan under false pretenses and lied about their willingness to comply >with the no-forwarding policy. I wonder who that someone could be? > >This individual was always unfailingly polite and never criticized the >Baha'i institutions in any way. The only possible charge against him is >that he is not a fundamentalist. In all the ridiculous and trumped-up >heresy cases that have been brought by the uhj and its counsellors against >devoted Baha'is Devoted Baha'is do not argue against the Covenant! in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single >conservative, however rude or obstreperous, has been charged, which pretty >clearly signals the real intent of these show trials and purges. in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single "liberal", however rude or obstreperous, has been reprimanded by list owners which pretty clearly signals the real intent of these lists. >I think it may be time for any Baha'i of liberal views who is involved in >regular email conversations to think seriously about becoming anonymous, for >self-protection. This is a coward's way out. Anyone should be willing either to stand on what he says, or retract it with an apology, if appropriate. >>remainder snipped for brevity Greetings, Dean Betts **************************************************************************** Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the Lord of all the worlds. - Baha'u'llah **************************************************************************** ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 10:12 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: talk.religion.bahai has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 2:36 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole; irfan@umich.edu; Talisman Subject: Re: anonymous remailers >I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a >wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has >been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening >letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is >second hand, Let me preface my remarks by saying that I imagine Juan Cole believes he is doing some kind of good in posting this hearsay on Talisman. I suppose he thinks the ends justify the means. He has mounted a bitter campaign against Baha'i institutions for some time now posting anything he can find that might tend to discredit the Rulers and the Learned of this Cause. There were several instances of this last year including an attack on a very mild mannered and self-effacing Counselor who resides in Canada. Those who were subscribed to the list last year will remember this sad episode. I'm not a member of Irfan because Juan Cole wouldn't allow me to join when he started the list because he considered me one of those perfidious fundamentalists he's always excoriating. He disallowed several other former T1 list members on various disingenuous grounds. IMO such acts call one's integrity into question. It seems as if one is not practicing what they preach. If one is a would-be reformer (academic freedom) then it seems reasonable that one would begin instituting such reforms within their own sphere of authority. As such I'm not a member of Irfan nor am I privy to the alleged postings of an unnamed devoted Baha'i who is being wrongfully investigated by a fundamentalistically motivated UHJ and it's Counselors (Juan's spin on the as yet unconfirmed incident). Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 2:36 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Michael McKenny Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai In message <881151716.1222645.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher writes >McKenny Michael wrote in message <65k4t0$c1@freenet-news.carleton.ca>... >> >> However, I did find someone, Elizabeth >>Holden (I believe she is one of those who voted YES last time), >>willing to be a proponent. Also, I invited several others, as I >>mention above. Maybe something will come of that. However, I believe >>it would make things a great deal easier were you to leave it up to >>others to promote TRB, and especially were you to refrain on the >>Baha'i lists from raising issues related to individuals. > >I'd be happy to welcome Elizabeth Holden as a proponent. >What about you, Chris? Ron? I don't know Elizabeth so cannot really say yes or no. If You, Ron and Michael all think that she is OK then I will go along with it. I can certainly confirm that she voted YES last time round. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 2:32 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) In message <01bcffd9$b2009520$762ab3c7@glayshe1>, Frederick Glaysher writes > >>Ron is outspoken but talks (writes?) a lot of sense. I suspect he treads >>on a few toes but I think he would be good to have. Sharon and Ginger I >>would love to work with. (I AM getting through my work backlog, >>gradually, though I do also have rehearsals and AGMs etc. And - arrrgh - >>I lost all my Baha'i Christmas card files in the meltdown.) I'm sorry if >>Mike's dropped out. We may have had our differences in the past but I >>feel he's an OK guy, though I still feel that there are too many Baha'is >>that still see him as untouchable. That's their problem, of course, >>though it does reflect back onto Mike, unfortunately. It would also, >>probably, increase the NO vote against TRB. > >Then Bahai fanatics can vote NO.... To me, it's up to Michael. >You have your veto, though, and, as always, may use it. I do not choose to use my veto. If Michael wishes to join us I am more than happy to work with him. The ONLY reservation I had I have already expressed. >>FYO, there have neen NO posts on Baha'i-Discuss on the subject of TRB >>for over a week. I guess the subject just burned itself out -- >>certainly there was no evidence of posts being censored or anything like >>that. > >Of course, having observed bd for two months, I must be candid >with you.... I will not accept anyone else's opinion about what might >be transpiring there, even yours.... No offense, but I have no trust >left, whatsoever, in that regard, as in >others....................................... You are quite right that there was a very hotile approach to TRB by a number of individuals on BD a while back (when I first joined the group). What I am saying now is that there are no messages being posted on the subject at this time. That is not to say that opponents to TRB have changed (though some people have become supporters), it's just that at the moment no-one is talking about it on BD. Yes, I have a limited amoutn of time available now. You probably don't know that I live in a trials environment and can be called upon to work very long hours with not too much notice. That has happened over the last month, which did not help my problems. [Talking of them, did you know that Windows 95 overwrites part of the BIOS if you have the right type? It seems that that may have happened to my system.] All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:58 PM To: UHJ Subject: To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Since similar activites as these have occurred during the discussion period for talk.religion.bahai, and may occur again, I am forwarding and posting with permission this message from Professor Juan Cole on the mailing list irfan to you and news.groups, so you may consult on these types of activities by Bahais while there is still time to prevent another massive abuse of it the Usenet voting system.... A Bahai subscribed to Bahai-Discuss masquerading as me (bahai@hotmail.com) recently perpetrated a similar highly questionable act that led directly to the BCCA removing me from its mailing lists. Given this pervasive approach by many fundamentalist minded Bahais to their use of mailing lists and newsgroups, I request again, with all sincerity and respect for your office, that you intervene on the approaching vote for talk.religion.bahai and instruct Bahais not to further disgrace the Faith with their fanaticism in the eyes of non-Bahais on the Internet. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com -------------Forwarded message begins: I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is second hand, appears to indicate that irfan postings were included in the indictment and had been archived and sent to the accused as proof of his perfidy. This use of Irfan messages (if my information is correct) strikes me as completely unethical (surprise!) on the part of the Baha'i authorities, since they can only have gotten the messages from someone who is on irfan under false pretenses and lied about their willingness to comply with the no-forwarding policy. This individual was always unfailingly polite and never criticized the Baha'i institutions in any way. The only possible charge against him is that he is not a fundamentalist. In all the ridiculous and trumped-up heresy cases that have been brought by the uhj and its counsellors against devoted Baha'is in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single conservative, however rude or obstreperous, has been charged, which pretty clearly signals the real intent of these show trials and purges. I think it may be time for any Baha'i of liberal views who is involved in regular email conversations to think seriously about becoming anonymous, for self-protection. Talisman is glad to accept anonymous email addresses; the Irfan board should decide the issue there, but I should think there is not a problem as long as anonymity doesn't encourage people to act up. America Online (AOL) allows its subscribers up to six aliases. There are also numerous anonymous remailing services on the Web, the most famous of which is www.hotmail.com. I don't know much about this sort of thing, since I insist on speaking my mind under my own name and then enjoying my notoriety. But I have heard that there is at least one anonmyous remailer that provides excellent security against surveillance of the account. Probably a Web keyword search under anonymous remailer would turn up more information. Obviously, there are thousands of Baha'is who do not share the current uhj's fundamentalist mindset, and they can't put them all on trial, so most of you are probably safe enough. Their tactic appears to be to identify persons who are persistent posters and who therefore are becoming "prominent," with whom they disagree about their vision of the Baha'i faith, and then to target them in hopes of either silencing them or forcing them out of the religion. They probably also hope that a few such publicized cases will scare every other non-fundamentalist into silence, as well. If so, they haven't dealt with many Americans. cheers Juan ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 6:59 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Chris Stone[SMTP:cstone@matrix.ru] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 5:21 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Plan of action > 1) By December 10th, finish nominating and deciding on any other > proponents. > > 2) By December 17th, finish consulting on 3rd RFD and post it to > news.announce.newgroups. > > Chris and Ron, et al: How's this sound? I would not recommend submitting any new RFD's that late in the year. There is still a noticeable lull in activity on Usenet over the winter holidays. This is likely to be the case even for non-Christians, since some workplaces shut down entirely and there is also the New Year to contend with. Submitting an RFD is not as problematic as a CFV over that period, but it is still unlikely to be noticed. ---------- From: Milissa Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 9:23 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: What is going on? Howdy everybody-- I don't post very often but this latest news about spying hit me like a 2 by 4! As I was reading it I thought "Please Lord don't let this be true!" Let me say that I have really appreciated Quanta's posts on the subject.....written with a true Baha'i spirit! Recently I was reading about this poor woman who was a Scientologist and died while in the care of her fellow religionists. Talk about spying...if the articles I have read are true, they are pretty good at it and even spy on non-Scientologists. I thought how sad it is she gave her life (and lots of money) to a cult. And then I continually read about the Taliban in Afghanistan and what they are doing in the name of "Islam".....women aren't even allowed in school anymore! Well, there are lots of other examples but you get the point. What is wrong with religious people anyway? It really seems to me that religion just gives people one more reason to hate each other or fight each other. Anyway, I am praying that Juan has gotten incorrect information. Please let that be so! The problem is, there is no way I can find out the truth, is there? If I wrote to the NSA or UHJ they would not tell me and it could even be used against me, as evidence of a lack of faith in the covenant. But to believe it is not true would entail believing Juan is a liar, and I can't believe that either. I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. Someone once told me that I could still be a Baha'i but yet administratively unenrolled. Is this really possible? I know Dean would say that if I really was a Baha'i I would be administratively enrolled. But I hate not being able to trust....it makes me feel hypocritcal and I can't stand that. I did enjoy Burl's post. Imagining trying to shut Linda up really cracked me up. I just wish she could still speak as a Baha'i.....not to mention Juan and David et al who have left us. You know, I just spent Thanksgiving weekend at Green Acre. It was fabulous....Gary Matthews gave a great session on teaching Christians. I was really impressed, because our approach has gotten much more sophisticated. Then we had a free concert with the NE Baha'i Choir which was very good and uplifting. And the greatest part was how nice everyone got along. It gave me the warm fuzzies. Really beautiful people. And speaking during the breaks with other people, it was clear that there were some big differences between us in our understanding and interpretations of the Bible, etc but no one had a cow, doubted anyone's firmness in the covenant, or baited anyone with an insincere question. It really gave me hope. Now this...........I should have known the warm fuzzies would wear off with the last of the turkey leftovers. Is there anyway to get to the bottom of this without violating any Baha'i principles or anyone's privacy? I don't want to know who forwarded posts, but if it really happened. There is no accounting for an individual's actions, the administration is not responsible for that. However, I want to know what they did about it. I want to believe that they ignore such posts and inform the forwarder that such behavior is not necessary, encouraged or condoned. If the NSA or UHJ did not inform the forwarder in this way, and then used such posts against the poster, then I will be horrified. And what can I say, but I am outta here, because such behavior would not be the behavior of a religion (Taliban notwithstanding) but a cult. And this would break my heart, because I will always believe in Baha'u'llah. I just want the truth! Please help..........Can I write to the UHJ about this? Peace, Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ************************************************************************** * ".....who could imagine..... * * that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * * * * --Frank Zappa * ************************************************************************** ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 8:28 AM To: UHJ Subject: To UHJ #2 (FWD annonymous remailers) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Since the following message further elaborates on issues that also concern many Bahai and non-Bahai participants in regard to talk.religion.bahai, I am reposting this message from Professor Juan Cole at the University of Michigan to news.groups and to you and appeal to you again to stop fanatical Bahais from undermining the Usenet interest polling system, the justly established "government" of Internet newsgroups.... I ask you to help such Bahais understand your recent words: "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." Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at -----------Begin forwarded message from talisman and irfan: Look, my dear friends, I didn't send my message to Irfan about anonymous remailers in order to provoke a witch hunt against the people forwarding the messages. I have much more respect for the people who declined to sign on to Irfan because they knew they would feel an impulsion to pass "offending" messages over to the Baha'i administration. But it has long been obvious that a number of persons were signed on to Irfan under false pretences, as, essentially, spies. While I think this makes them "not Baha'is" since Shoghi Effendi strictly forbade lying, I think we can all understand the immature sense of "ethics" that drives them to do this. They are between 3 and 4 on the Kohlberg scale. They don't know how to reconcile their loyalty to the faith with their ethical obligations to other irfanis (stage 3); and they are willing to sacrifice their personal integrity for the sake of a group ideology (an odd mixture of stage 2 and stage 4). All totalitarian organizations and one-party states produce such people, and the Baha'i community is riddled with more informers per square inch than was the old Soviet Union or the Shah's Iran. The reason I sent my message was simply to acknowledge that my expectation that the Baha'i *institutions* would not be so dishonorable as to act on information supplied unethically was incorrect. They appear entirely willing to snoop through informants' reports from private lists for signs of heresy and then to initiate proceedings against the poster. In this situation, and given what has happened to devoted Baha'is who sacrificed so much of their lives for the good of the Baha'i faith and for service to humankind and universal ideals, such as Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl, David Langness, Michael McKenny and a number of other persons who have been silenced behind the scenes, it appears to me that the only viable way to continue to function as a real Baha'i (as opposed to a fundamentalist cultist masquerading as a Baha'i) in cyberspace is to become anonymous. I have forwarded some information about relatively secure anonymous remailers. I personally think that one of the things that drives the ongoing inquisition is concern about cyberspace visibility translating into electability, so anonymity might be enough to induce the authorities to lay off. The point is that the Baha'i institutions have developed a mixture of totalitarian and fundamentalist ideology that disallows academic scholarship (thus the silencing of Fadil Mazandarani, the expulsion of Abbas Amanat, and the charging of Linda Walbridge and me), disallows independent Baha'i media not controlled by the institutions, and disallows the public expression of individual faith commitments at variance with the totalitarian/fundamentalist orthodoxy. In a very clever set of reversals, these authoritarian policies are actually attributed to Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite the clear evidence that they did not and would not have approved of any such thing. The various repressive strategies adopted by this one-party Baha'i state, including informing, surveillance, blackballing, threats, administrative sanctions, and ultimately shunning, have been remarkably effective in stultifying Baha'i intellectual and spiritual life and keeping the religion a tiny cult in the industrialized world. (Most Baha'is have no idea how tiny the religion really is--only a few hundred in most European countries, e.g.). The *only* way for the faith to break out of this gridlock and develop and flourish in the West is for the Baha'is to develop civil society. There have to be *public* institutional spaces wherein the failed policies that have caused such stagnation here and elsewhere can be critiqued, wherein critical thinking can be pursued in common, and an alternative to totalitarian fundamentalism developed. The hard-line, old-style Baha'is in the mold of Holley and Furutan are attempting to prevent this healthy development by targeting thinking Baha'is and chasing them out or dropping them off the rolls or silencing them. They think they are defending the faith even though they are wreaking enormous harm to it. Just as Brezhnev thought he was defending socialism in invading Czechoslavakia or Afghanistan, but was in fact digging its grave. If anonymity in email is necessary to go forward with genuine Baha'i thinking, which is to say, with universal love, service to humankind, the unity of science and religion (and therefore of reason and faith), the equal rights of all, freedom of conscience and speech, and other principles we all thought we were endorsing when we joined the Baha'i faith (but the opposite of which are secretly held by the cult "administrative order")--then let there be anonymity. cheers Juan ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 10:37 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ #2 (FWD annonymous remailers) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:10 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: What is going on? From: Milissa Kafes However, I want to know what they did about it. I want to believe that they ignore such posts and inform the forwarder that such behavior is not necessary, encouraged or condoned. If the NSA or UHJ did not inform the forwarder in this way, and then used such posts against the poster, then I will be horrified. BEGIN MY RESPONSE TO HER: If you'll consider a recent parallel experience, during the last two months, I was attacked on Bahai-Discuss by an individual hiding behind a pseudonym, bahai@hotmail.com," pretending to be me, reposting messages from me writing several months earlier for other contexts. As a direct result of his actions, a Bahai emailed me a threatening message that fully accepted at face value everything the anonymous poster implied.... When I immediately appealed to the BCCA to intervene on Bahai-Discuss with both individuals, they emailed me back a message accusing me of starting the whole thing, ignoring what both people had done. The worst insult came about a month later when abruptly the BCCA removed my name from all Bahai lists under their control, claiming not to want to influence the interest poll on talk.religion.bahai a direct result of the intrigue and designs of bahai@hotmail.com who must be a Bahai since he had to give his Bahai ID to subscribe.... To what extent can the BCCA be considered the administration, I don't know.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:49 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 2nd RFD 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. CHANGES from previous RFD: The only major change on this 2nd RFD is a second proponent has climbed aboard: Chris Manvell. Several other very minor things. 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. 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. 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. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is almost exclusively for unmoderated groups. 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. 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. 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. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 10:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 3rd RFD 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. CHANGES from 2nd RFD: The only major change on this 3nd RFD is a third proponent has joined: Ron House. Several significant changes have been made, based upon discussion, under the Charter section. 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. 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. 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. 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. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. 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." (Message-ID: >m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanford.EDU< 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. This group is for open discussion of issues relating to the Baha'i Faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the Baha'i Faith, nor is the parallel group soc.religion.bahai. This self-evident disclaimer and mention of Baha'i standards of conduct are not intended to be used as "whipping posts," by or against Baha'is or non-Baha'is, after the passing of the RFD. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell Proponent: Ron House ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:05 PM Subject: To UHJ #3 (FWD annonymous remailers) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider this forwarded message as further evidence of the atmosphere of fear and suspicion and distrust that fundamentalist-minded Baha'is have created on private mailing lists and during the discussion for talk.religion.bahai. I beg you to prove to the world that it is not so.... That the glorious Words of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha on free speech and religious conscience actually mean something among Baha'is.... With all respect, hope, and trust in your high office, Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ------Begin forwarded message: Dear Richard: I must say I am shocked and disturbed at your diatribe at me. When did I ever attack you or bring your character and motivations into question? Are you really doing to others as you would have them do unto you? > He has mounted a bitter campaign >against Baha'i institutions for some time now posting anything he can >find that might tend to discredit the Rulers and the Learned of this >Cause. Well, actually, I am the one against whom a bitter campaign was mounted, by Farzam Arbab, Doug Martin, Ian Semple, Fred Schechter, Monajjem, Stephen Birkland, and others. I was just minding my own business, studying the writings and doing deepenings for the friends in cyberspace. All of a sudden I am being made out some kind of proto-covenant breaker. And the charges against me were things like talking about Baha'u'llah as a historical person. Stephen Birkland sat in my living room and accused me of talking about Baha'u'llah as a historical person. And this sort of nonsense was being construed by the uhj and the itc as covenantal. He was a historical person, by the way. And after they drove me out of the faith I loved with these utterly false and dishonest charges, the cued or at least allowed their minions to go around slandering me as mentally unbalanced or as thirsting for leadership or some such. Let me ask you, Richard. What exactly have I done to any of these cultists that even slightly compares to what they did to me? >There were several instances of this last year including an >attack on a very mild mannered and self-effacing Counselor who resides in >Canada. Those who were subscribed to the list last year will remember >this sad episode. Your self-effacing Dr. Ghadirian stood up in front of a large crowd in London, where I was not present, and libelled me and David Langness as "enemies from within" of the Baha'i faith. Being a counsellor does not give him license to backbite or to spread falsehoods in public. All I did was protest being treated this way by him. I still haven't gotten the apology from him I deserve, by the way. >I'm not a member of Irfan because Juan Cole wouldn't allow me to join >when he started the list because he considered me one of those perfidious >fundamentalists he's always excoriating. Richard, I haven't had anything to do with Irfan@umich.edu for a very long time. Take it up with their board. When it started it was a private list I ran off my x500 program, and I let people on to it who I thought were involved in serious Baha'i studies. I suppose you have amply demonstrated what you thought and think of me, which doesn't exactly call into question my earlier judgment. But I do want you to know that I bear you no ill will and that I know you can be very sweet, and that it is your desire for unity and harmony that drives you to demonize me for protesting injustice. I don't like the role that has been thrust on me, either, you know. But I don't see how I can lie down and let these people walk all over my friends; it wouldn't be right. As for the Inquisition launched against a friend of ours, your questioning of my assertion is just a muddying of the waters. After what happened to the prominent Talismanians and to Michael McKenny, does a further Inquisition really sound so implausible to you? Anyway, all I said was I now think if someone wants to be a true Baha'i in cyberspace, they'd better do it anonymously. What's wrong with my saying that? cheers Juan ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 3:05 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ #3 (FWD annonymous remailers) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:15 PM To: UHJ Subject: To UHJ #4 (FWD annonymous remailers) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please accept this forwarded message as further evidence of the dire straits to which the Baha'i Faith has come as a result of the destructive attacks by literal-minded Baha'is on the consciences of others.... Some of these self-same fundamentalist vices have been demonstrated in regard to talk.religion.bahai.... Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at -----Original Message----- From: Juan R. I. Cole [to talisman] Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 12:08 AM Subject: Re: anonymous remailers > >>I said I imagined you believe you are doing some kind of good and I meant >>it, but I don't believe you can step back from yourself and see the harm >>you are causing. > >Dear Richard: > >Could you please be more specific about *my* causing any harm? Human >beings, real, living human beings, are being manipulated, libelled, given >nightmares, silenced or forced out, and having the most treasured parts of >their identity torn from them. It happened to me. It happened to Linda >Walbridge. It happened to Steve Scholl. It happened to Michael McKenny. >And it has happened to many others behind the scenes, who decided to handle >it differently. This is being done to devoted Baha'is. Linda Walbridge >pioneered in difficult circumstances in both Lebanon and Jordan, and she >made enormous sacrifices (including monetary and quality-of-life sacrifices >with regard to her children) for the faith while her husband was working for >it on the Encyclopedia project. She never harmed the faith she loved. >Unlike the treasurer of the Phoenix LSA, she never embezzled $70,000 from >the Baha'i faith, yet the treasurer of the Phoenix LSA is still a Baha'i and >has not been accused of contravening the covenant. Unlike some high Baha'i >officials she was never guilty of any infraction of Baha'i law or of sexual >harrassment or of lying to the Baha'is. Yet they have cushy offices and >make pompous speeches and are being paid out of your donations to the faith. >What was her crime? To express her views on email, views which were >legitimately hers as a Baha'i in good standing (i.e. she was guilty of doing >the same thing that Richard Logan and Burl Barer do every day). She had the >right to declare her conscience and express her views, according to Shoghi >Effendi. That right was withdrawn from her suddenly, by narrow-minded >elderly men eager to slap down an uppity woman. And she was forced out of >the faith she loved, by the very people who should have been nurturing her >faith and helping her forward. She was betrayed, deeply, treasonously, >inexcusably. > >And this is somehow *my* fault? > >>I'm convinced >>that it was unnecessary for things to have come to this--that you allowed >>yourself to be swept into a self-fullfilling prophecy. I could be very >>wrong in this but I'm letting know as a brother and a collegial admirer. > >Richard, if I wanted revenge there are lots of ways for me to get it far >more efficacious than sending occasional messages to 80 Baha'is. I was in >the religion for nearly quarter of a century. I have lots of documentation >of Baha'i leaders' peccadilloes. I'm not interested in that sort of thing. >When you set out for revenge you have to be sure to dig *two* graves. > >What I am interested in doing is protesting against the *systemic* >injustices being committed against Baha'is by their own administration. And >I have the same interest in this as I do protesting, as a member of Amnesty >International, violations of human rights in any setting. When the Baha'i >administration stops conducting intellectual pogroms and inquisitions that >are contrary to Baha'i law and contrary to basic Baha'i scriptural >principle, then all you will hear from me is translations of Baha'u'llah's >tablets. > >>The question of credibility is always at issue when allegations are made. > >I said that I was provided information from a source I trust (who was in >direct contact with the principal), that an Irfani is currently being >prosecuted for email messages that include Irfan messages, which the >prosecutors (i.e. the uhj and the counselors) can only have received >illicitly and can only use by disregarding the right to privacy and >confidentiality that should be enjoyed by everyone on irfan. I stand by >this statement and I think there are enough others who know the particulars >such that I need not be seen as the only source for this information, nor is >it biased in any way. > >As for the possibility that I could have handled things differently, I >respectfully disagree. While I am glad to say I am all to fallible and make >mistakes all the time (something your uhj, out of institutional pride, would >never admit about *itself*), I do not believe this was one of them. >You see, I put up with quite a lot over the years from the Baha'i >administration, and I never considered leaving the faith. It was not a >matter, as with Louis Gregory, of my simply being dropped off salary. I was >never on salary, and never sought to be. I endured being buttonholed and >hassled about my academic writing (which is no one's business but mine), and >I endured being backbitten & so forth. For 24 years. > >But when the Baha'i *institutions& *falsely* accused me of contravening a >covenant for which I had risked my life on more than one occasion, it >demonstrated to me that the religion had gone seriously bad, that it had >become corrupt and cult-like, and that there was no place in it for persons >like myself except if they should live their lives in silence and in fear of >the ignorant and narrow-minded. Since this is demonstrably the opposite of >what Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha wanted for the world, it is hard to escape >the conclusion that the religion has been betrayed by its leaders, just as >Islam was betrayed by the ulama and Christianity was betrayed by the popes >and the priests. > >Roman Catholicism has benefitted enormously from the Protestant, secular and >other non-Catholic critique it has been submitted to in the past 400 years, >and is demonstrably a better religion after Vatican II than it was during >the Inquisition. And in the same way that the non-Catholics have done so >much to help the Church right itself after it had gone deeply astray from >Jesus's principles, so non-Baha'is with an intimate knowledge of the Baha'i >faith have a duty to try to help that religion return to its scriptural >roots and principles. This is all the more urgent given that those Baha'is >within the administrative order who speak out about the problems they see >are swiftly silenced or expelled. And just as the Vatican has never thanked >Voltaire for helping reform it, I doubt the Baha'i authorities, after they >finally have their version of Vatican II and release the poor Baha'is from >intellectual bondage, will thank any of us who helped them achieve that >reform. So be it. But that is what is desirable: that the Baha'i >institutions start acting as Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi >would have wanted them to, instead of like Inquisitors and musty Stalinists. > > >cheers Juan ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 3:16 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ #4 (FWD annonymous remailers) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 10:43 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Anonymous postings has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 11:03 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 1:33 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca[SMTP:afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 2:45 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) Hello Mr.Glaysher, The reason I am not participating is simply because I believe that maybe, just maybe, the last time I did it might have provoked the bahais to vote No more than it caused others to vote Yes. I am following the discussion eagerly and wish you all the best. Peace. Afshin Afrashteh ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:40 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > McKenny Michael wrote in message <65k4t0$c1@freenet-news.carleton.ca>... > > > > However, I did find someone, Elizabeth > >Holden (I believe she is one of those who voted YES last time), > >willing to be a proponent. Also, I invited several others, as I > >mention above. Maybe something will come of that. However, I believe > >it would make things a great deal easier were you to leave it up to > >others to promote TRB, and especially were you to refrain on the > >Baha'i lists from raising issues related to individuals. > > I'd be happy to welcome Elizabeth Holden as a proponent. > What about you, Chris? Ron? > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at I don't know her. I leave it up to those who do. BTW: going on a holiday now till after the new year, so please don't wait for answers from me if you need to make any decisions. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ---------- From: Keith Tookey[SMTP:tookey@cs.wisc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:24 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran You know, for a while there, I thought you were going to moderate your rantings and ravings and let others push the proposal. You want a letter from the Universal HOuse of Justice? Write them a PRIVATE letter, asking for their advice on what you personally should be doing. Then FOLLOW their advice. THey have already stated that it is up to individuals to decide. Now I believe, in a Baha'i context, that also means becoming fully acquainted with the issue. Chris has promoted that; YOU have not. Every time I read a post of yours, it makes me want to campaign AGAINST talk.religion.bahai. Unfortunately, nowhere in the Baha'i Writings does it say you should vote against an issue just because the loudest proponent is a ... never mind. COuld you please BE QUIET? If it fails, I bet a large amount of the no votes are against you rather than against the proposal. Do you want that? In article <66ef89$439@news2.zippo.com> you write: >Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3489776A.E234D77F@sprintmail.com>... >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> >>> What of the human rights of Bahais in America, Europe, and indeed >>> thoroughout the world? >>(snip rest) >> >>You want to take it to alt.religion.bahai, fine. You want to write >>more open letters to the UHJ, fine. Do not do so in news.groups. You >>are way beyond off-topic and you are pissing me off. > >I wish I were off topic, but, alas, the treatment of this proposal by >Bahais, on and off news.groups, has convinced me that a wider >context of human rights abuse and suppression of speech and >conscience is inescapable. I urge you and others to read Dr. Juan >Cole's messages, reposted with his permission by me, titled >"To UHJ" to obtain a fuller understanding of the long history of >Bahai suppression of the human rights of its members, here, in >the United States, and elsewhere.... Bahais have made it >impossible to ignore those realities during this discussion on >news.groups.... Note carefully, and reflect please, on Dr. Cole's >claim that he himself has been DEMONIZED by Bahais.... A >common practice by all those who wish to stigmatize and then >suppress people of diverse mind or opinion.... > >To ignore this wider context would be, I am convinced, tantamount >to conceding defeat and permitting Bahais yet again to take >talk.religion.bahai "hostage." > >> >>I will say it again, so you understand. There is no possible way that >>the lack of an unmoderated discussion group on Usenet which specifically >>says "bahai" in the title, in the talk hierarchy, can be equated with >>human rights abuses. You posting was offensive in the extreme. > >The issue is much more complicated, I believe, then your words here >reveal. Again, please read Dr. Cole's brief historical accounts of >free speech in the Bahai Faith. They are basically what I know and >have experienced, and you don't.... They are part and parcel of what >this proposal for talk.religion.bahai has been made into by Bahais >themselves and their vehemently fanatical opposition to it.... > >I believe it is an abuse of the human rights of other people to deny >them the expression of their consciences under the Usenet voting >system when so much interest has been documented through >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere throught the first vote. Every >indication is that Bahais have learnt nothing from the discussion >period thus far, are not sincere about letting others have their own >newspapers and books, if you will, instead of burning them, i.e., >talk.religion.bahai.... > >I highly respect you and other non-Bahais here on news.groups. >I beg you to consider the wider context of oppression of opinion >in the Bahai Faith and realize this is just another stage of that >same sad story.... There's a history here.... One that cannot be >ignored with impunity.... > >I find the holding by Bahais of an exhibition in the rotunda of the >Capitol building in Washington, DC, on free speech and >religious freedom, using the victims in Iran, as offensive in the >extreme while I and other Bahais are denounced, DEMONIZED, >harassed, hunted down, threatened, ganged up on, lied about, >excommunicated, thrown out of the Bahai Faith, and so on and >so on and so on.... > >BAHAIS HAVE MADE THIS ALL A PART OF THE INTEREST >POLLING VOTE FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI, NOT I.... > >I won't ignore it, and I ask, nay, beg, other fair-minded people >not to.... > >Remember all the CULT disasters our country and the world >have witnessed from time to time and see beyond the >honey-coated words of some Bahais to the reality of their >oppossition to free speech and religious conscience.... > >Forgive me, but I believe truth and honesty require that I also >must forward this message to the UHJ.... The conclusion is >inescapble to me, as surely to many, that either the corruption >is the result of lower order zealots going to extreme, or is the >responsibility of the Bahais administration at the highest >level.... > >Again, I appeal to them to ask their followers to permit a free >and honest vote to go forward on news.groups without their >scuttling through a massive, unethical NO vote.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > ---------- From: Keith Tookey[SMTP:tookey@cs.wisc.edu] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:26 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Congratulations! You posted correctly, incitefully, and without insulting anyone. Doesnt that feel better? In article <66ea44$1p6@news2.zippo.com> you write: > >Guy Macon wrote in message <66e5bn$n50$6@news01.deltanet.com>... > > I repeat my question: where in the Big-8 newsgroups >>can I have a discussion about how the teachings of the bahai faith apply >>to someone who is posting bahai webpage ads in non-bahai newsgroups? >> >>Pointing to a.r.b doesn't count. This is an argument that can be used >>against *any* newsgroup proposal. Alt.* newsgroups are not a substitute >>for big-8 newsgroups. > >Since no one else will answer your question, permit me: >talk.religion.bahai, once it passes, which doesn't help you at the >moment.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 8:38 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd Rfd? In message <01bd06f5$21c11ca0$142ab3c7@glaysher.Library>, Frederick Glaysher writes >Let me know right away what you think about the 3rd RFD so that your >views can be incorporated in it.... It's got to go in this weekend for >David Lawrence to post it to news.announce.newgroups. > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at Will address it today. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Go to to read the REVISED RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 6:47 AM Subject: To UHJ #5 (Juan Cole: "democratic (ha!)) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I ask that you consider this forwarded message from Juan Cole, Professor of history at the University of Michigan, as further documentation of the abuses being wrought on the Bahai Faith by the fundamentalist mindset that seems to many to have overtaken it. Though he withdrew from the Bahai Faith, after being a member for 24 years, he has recently said of several individuals in the Bahai administration, and perhaps broadly, "they drove me out of the faith I loved." Since many Bahais during the discussion appear to have followed seemingly similar tactics to those described here, while others during this consultation might worry that the Bahai administrative order has become this despotic, I am sharing this message on news.groups and hope you will redeem these much sullied and doubted words of Abdu'l-Baha: "Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. . . . When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable." The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. I thank you for acknowledging the receipt of the 27 messages I have sent you since November 20, 1997, and hope that they might help you understand the broad and serious nature of the concerns represented by the vote for talk.religion.bahai. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------begin forwared message from talisman: Richard: After the barbaric and dishonest way the "universal" house of "justice" dealt with Michael McKenny, you are in some state of doubt as to whether there is a fight going on? The fight is to determine whether those who hold the views I listed yesterday may continue to be Baha'is in good standing. The answer is: only if they hide their consciences from view, quaking in fear of the conservatives and fundamentalists who have clawed their way onto the universal house of justice, and who are eager to institute inquisitions and expulsions against anyone who dares actually be a Baha'i and think for him or herself. And the point of these inquisitions and expulsions is to ensure conservative hegemony, to ensure than no voice can be heard in the community save a conservative one. This is not only a fight, it is a full-scale persecution. That would be all right if this were the sort of thing Baha'u'llah or `Abdu'l-Baha had ordained. But it isn't. It is the most profound betrayal of a prophet by his successors since the popes instituted the Inquisition. [Response to] Quanta: I should think the current universal house of justice has by its pronouncements and actions made abundantly clear that it is not interested in consultation or group reasoning together as a means of problem solving. These people have worked themselves into a state of mind that they think they are prophets speaking with the voice of God, and you either agree with them or you are not a Baha'i and they can arrange to make your life miserable. (They even think they have the authority to say something about legitimate academic methodology! That's the funniest thing of all). They have said this over and over again in the past two years. They are not interested in your faith or sincerity or grappling with difficult questions or trying to work together through consultation to resolve problems. They are interested in dictating a narrow ideology to all Baha'is (despite the fact that there isn't the slightest scriptural mandate for their behaving in this manner), and in having all Baha'is kowtow to it. They don't throw around the word Supreme so much because they like Motown. Since most people don't join a religion because they are desperate for someone to tell them what they can or cannot think or say, the result of this sort of narrow-mindedness is to keep the religion tiny in literate countries. I can't tell you how many ex-Baha'is I have met in cyberspace who complain bitterly about being regimented and shepherded. I mean, you could understand this sort of thing in the Amish, who want to be a small isolationist sect, or in the Catholics, who have believers to spare. But as a tactic for a very small group (I doubt there are really more than 1 1/2 million Baha'is) to attract believers and grow itself into a world religion, it sucks. There are some issues on which it is worthwhile writing to them. This is not one of them. My advice: Do your own thing as long as you can. cheers Juan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 7:34 AM Subject: To UHJ #6 (Juan Cole: Protest to Islamic Authorities) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I ask you to consider this forwarded message, from some of today's most widely recognized writers of international stature, including one Nobel laureate. The oppressive atmosphere that has developed in the Bahai Faith during recent memory, as Dr. Juan Cole suggests here, and others have testified elsewhere, seems appallingly reminiscent of that in present day Iran. As a published poet and literary critic, having edited the poems and prose of Robert Hayden, I deeply feel the irony and poignancy of this critique and comparison. Indeed, it was the initial conviction, born of 21 years of membership in the Bahai Faith, that no real artistic work of worth could ever be written in the present Bahai environment that has compelled me to sacrifice myself, my membership in the Bahai Faith, if need be, to help create an unmoderated forum on Usenet. I beg you again with all my heart and soul to give evidence to the world that the Bahai Faith lives up to its own teachings on human rights and free speech and respects the conscience with which God has endowed humankind. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ------begin forwarded message from talisman: The following letter written to the heads of states participating in the Islamic Conference Organization meeting in Tehran groups some wll-known progressive intellectuals and addresses issues of concern also to those on the present list. It should be remembered that the same regime responsible for these crackdowns on writers has persecuted the Iranian Baha'i community. Ironically, there is every evidence that many in the Baha'i administration would also not allow freedom of speech to writers if they gained control of the machinery of state. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- OPEN LETTER From: Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller To Heads of States participating in the Islamic Conference (December 8-11, 1997, Tehran) December 8, 1997 We speak today as writers engaged in the constant struggle to defend our right and the right of our colleagues around the world to express ourselves freely without fear of reprisal. This week, two significant events coincide: International Human Rights Day (December 10th) and the Islamic Conference in Tehran (December 8th-11th). In light of the rich literary heritage of the participating countries, we wish to draw attention to the plight of many writers who must struggle every day with the unacceptable choice to either protect their own safety and remain silent; or to speak their minds and risk imprisonment, torture and even death. In Tehran this week, many people will speak, and many will be spoken of: we wish to mention a few who will not. We turn our attention first to the host country of the conference, the Islamic Republic of Iran. By censoring many of its brightest literary figures and silencing all dissent, the government has gone to great lengths to undermine Iran's long and distinguished tradition of letters. The editor, Faraj Sarkuhi, is imprisoned today for nothing more than attempting to speak his mind. He will not be on any agenda at the Conference, but his presence in a cell somewhere nearby will surely cast a cloud over the proceedings. So will the deaths of writers and intellectuals such as Soltanpoor, Saidi-Sirjani, Mir'ala'i, Tafazzoli, and Zalzadeh. The recent suppression of Simin Behbahani shows that the signatories of the 1994 Declaration of 134 Iranian Writers remain in danger today. It is not only in Iran that writers have been censored, imprisoned, exiled, or killed by official and unofficial groups. In Algeria, Abdel Kadr Alloula, the playwright, filmmaker and actor was gunned down for his denunciation of violence. In Syria, the poet, Faraj Birqdar, has been imprisoned for ten years. In Kuwait, Iraqi poet Khalaf Alwan Jallud Al-Maliki is serving 15 years in prison. In Iraq, Aziz Al-Syed Jasim, journalist and author, is imprisoned indefinitely for refusing to write a book about Saddam Hussein. In Turkey, Recep Marasli, a publisher, was arrested in March 1997 for xpressing his views on Kurdish culture and identity. Even writers of international stature, such as Turkey's Yasar Kamal and Egypt's Naguib Mahfouz, have been targeted in recent years. We condemn these violations irrespective of the perpetrator. We appeal to the participants in the Islamic Conference to put an end to these abuses and to promote freedom of expression which will inevitably enrich their cultural heritage. We believe that the coincidence of International Human Rights Day and the 1997 Islamic Conference points to a larger truth in which the caprices of chance play no part: try as they may, governments who repress their own citizens cannot escape the standard of freedom set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As we celebrate the declaration*s forty-ninth anniversary this week, we reaffirm our commitment to human rights and our conviction that all leaders who violate such principles as freedom of expression shall witness the erosion of their power, and shall be defeated by the strength inherent in words. Signed Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 8:26 AM Subject: To UHJ #6 (Juan Cole: Protest to Islamic Authorities Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I ask you to consider this forwarded message, from some of today's most widely recognized writers of international stature, including one Nobel laureate. The oppressive atmosphere that has developed in the Bahai Faith during recent memory, as Dr. Juan Cole suggests here, and others have testified elsewhere, seems appallingly reminiscent of that in present day Iran. As a published poet and literary critic, having edited the poems and prose of Robert Hayden, I deeply feel the irony and poignancy of this critique and comparison. Indeed, it was the initial conviction, born of 21 years of membership in the Bahai Faith, that no real artistic work of worth could ever be written in the present Bahai environment that has compelled me to sacrifice myself, my membership in the Bahai Faith, if need be, to help create an unmoderated forum on Usenet. I beg you again with all my heart and soul to give evidence to the world that the Bahai Faith lives up to its own teachings on human rights and free speech and respects the conscience with which God has endowed humankind. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ------begin forwarded message from talisman: The following letter written to the heads of states participating in the Islamic Conference Organization meeting in Tehran groups some wll-known progressive intellectuals and addresses issues of concern also to those on the present list. It should be remembered that the same regime responsible for these crackdowns on writers has persecuted the Iranian Baha'i community. Ironically, there is every evidence that many in the Baha'i administration would also not allow freedom of speech to writers if they gained control of the machinery of state. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- OPEN LETTER From: Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller To Heads of States participating in the Islamic Conference (December 8-11, 1997, Tehran) December 8, 1997 We speak today as writers engaged in the constant struggle to defend our right and the right of our colleagues around the world to express ourselves freely without fear of reprisal. This week, two significant events coincide: International Human Rights Day (December 10th) and the Islamic Conference in Tehran (December 8th-11th). In light of the rich literary heritage of the participating countries, we wish to draw attention to the plight of many writers who must struggle every day with the unacceptable choice to either protect their own safety and remain silent; or to speak their minds and risk imprisonment, torture and even death. In Tehran this week, many people will speak, and many will be spoken of: we wish to mention a few who will not. We turn our attention first to the host country of the conference, the Islamic Republic of Iran. By censoring many of its brightest literary figures and silencing all dissent, the government has gone to great lengths to undermine Iran's long and distinguished tradition of letters. The editor, Faraj Sarkuhi, is imprisoned today for nothing more than attempting to speak his mind. He will not be on any agenda at the Conference, but his presence in a cell somewhere nearby will surely cast a cloud over the proceedings. So will the deaths of writers and intellectuals such as Soltanpoor, Saidi-Sirjani, Mir'ala'i, Tafazzoli, and Zalzadeh. The recent suppression of Simin Behbahani shows that the signatories of the 1994 Declaration of 134 Iranian Writers remain in danger today. It is not only in Iran that writers have been censored, imprisoned, exiled, or killed by official and unofficial groups. In Algeria, Abdel Kadr Alloula, the playwright, filmmaker and actor was gunned down for his denunciation of violence. In Syria, the poet, Faraj Birqdar, has been imprisoned for ten years. In Kuwait, Iraqi poet Khalaf Alwan Jallud Al-Maliki is serving 15 years in prison. In Iraq, Aziz Al-Syed Jasim, journalist and author, is imprisoned indefinitely for refusing to write a book about Saddam Hussein. In Turkey, Recep Marasli, a publisher, was arrested in March 1997 for xpressing his views on Kurdish culture and identity. Even writers of international stature, such as Turkey's Yasar Kamal and Egypt's Naguib Mahfouz, have been targeted in recent years. We condemn these violations irrespective of the perpetrator. We appeal to the participants in the Islamic Conference to put an end to these abuses and to promote freedom of expression which will inevitably enrich their cultural heritage. We believe that the coincidence of International Human Rights Day and the 1997 Islamic Conference points to a larger truth in which the caprices of chance play no part: try as they may, governments who repress their own citizens cannot escape the standard of freedom set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As we celebrate the declaration*s forty-ninth anniversary this week, we reaffirm our commitment to human rights and our conviction that all leaders who violate such principles as freedom of expression shall witness the erosion of their power, and shall be defeated by the strength inherent in words. Signed Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 1997 9:33 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. CHANGES from 2nd RFD: The only major change on this 3nd RFD is a third proponent has joined: Ron House. Several other changes have been made, based upon discussion, under the Charter or Procedure section. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the Baha'i faith, as is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion. This self-evident disclaimer and mention of Baha'i standards of conduct are not intended to be used as "whipping posts," by or against Baha'is or non-Baha'is, after the passing of the RFD. Webster's Third New International: "A post formerly usually in public to which offenders are tied to be legally whipped." Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: 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." (Message-ID: >m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanford.EDU< The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell Proponent: Ron House ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 4:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: posted "3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai" [ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] On 15 Dec 1997 (Mon), at 8:56:51 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.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel It was also sent separately to the following group, for which another moderator must approve it: soc.religion.bahai It was also sent separately to the following lists: Talisman@umich.edu Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 4:56 AM To: Talisman@umich.edu Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. CHANGES from previous RFD: The only major change on this 3nd RFD is a third proponent has joined: Ron House. Several other changes have been made, based upon discussion, under the Charter or Procedure section. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the Baha'i faith, as is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion. This self-evident disclaimer and mention of Baha'i standards of conduct are not intended to be used as "whipping posts," by or against Baha'is or non-Baha'is, after the passing of the RFD. Webster's Third New International: "A post formerly usually in public to which offenders are tied to be legally whipped." Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: 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." (Message-ID: > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell Proponent: Ron House ---------- From: Russ Allbery[SMTP:rra@stanford.edu] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 11:29 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Holiday break & 3rd RFD Frederick Glaysher writes: > Henrietta Thomas and I have been discussing the posting of the 3rd RFD > and she advised me to ask you for a clarification. The 2nd RFD was > posted on November 5th. Since Tale will be gone on vacation until > January 5th, what I do if we can't all agree on changes to the RFD and > get it in before Dec. 20th when he leaves? Looks like this won't be an issue, since I just posted the 3rd RFD, but for the record.... > I don't want the RFD to expire and someone else attempt to post one > along different lines.... This wouldn't be a problem. Since you're actively working on a proposal, we wouldn't let someone else hijack it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) ---------- From: Afshin Afrashteh[SMTP:nokhodchi@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 1:17 PM To: nokhodchi@hotmail.com; FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Co-proponent? Sure, I would have no problem with that. I just hope you know what you are doing. Like I said, having me attached to this too strongly might cause more bahais to vote no hehe. But sure, I can be a co-proponent. Afshin Afrashteh >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Dec 15 04:28:51 1997 >Received: (qmail 7313 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1997 12:28:50 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher.Library) (199.179.42.119) > by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 1997 12:28:50 -0000 >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: >Subject: Co-proponent? >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:29:05 -0500 >Message-ID: <01bd0955$08336ce0$772ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >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 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Would you be willing to become a co-proponent for talk.religion.bahai? > >The 3rd RFD has just been posted. We could get you on the 4th one. > >I think it would be a big help. Your presence there would make it >all the more clear that there are Muslims, as well as secular or >whatever non-Bahais, who are in favor of an unmanipulated source >of information and discussion on the Bahais.... > >Let me know.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 1:21 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole; Talisman Subject: Re: democratic (ha!) >After the barbaric and dishonest way the "universal" house of "justice" >dealt with Michael McKenny, you are in some state of doubt as to whether >there is a fight going on? The fight is to determine whether those who hold >the views I listed yesterday may continue to be Baha'is in good standing. >The answer is: only if they hide their consciences from view, quaking in >fear of the conservatives and fundamentalists who have clawed their way onto >the universal house of justice, and who are eager to institute inquisitions >and expulsions against anyone who dares actually be a Baha'i and think for >him or herself. And the point of these inquisitions and expulsions is to >ensure conservative hegemony, to ensure than no voice can be heard in the >community save a conservative one. This is not only a fight, it is a >full-scale persecution. That would be all right if this were the sort of >thing Baha'u'llah or `Abdu'l-Baha had ordained. But it isn't. It is the >most profound betrayal of a prophet by his successors since the popes >instituted the Inquisition. I'm not going to comment on this, and I refuse to be drawn into a fight. I f you have points to make, make them in a way that doesn't insult believers. Don't insult and scorn believers with tags like fundamentalist, literalist, and conservative. I doubt very seriously there is anyone on this list that would self-style themselves in such a manner. Just a an example, I noticed from his post that Theo was hurt by these labels that educated, thoughtful, and progressive people would not choose for themselves. The subtext of these characterizations are clear: those that don't agree with you or oppose you are retrograde barbarians. I suggest that you take a different approach in your communications. Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 1:59 PM To: talisman Subject: Re: democratic (ha!) Richard C. Logan wrote: >I'm not going to comment on this, and I refuse to be drawn into a fight. >I f you have points to make, make them in a way that doesn't insult >believers. > >Don't insult and scorn believers with tags like fundamentalist, >literalist, and conservative. I doubt very seriously there is anyone on >this list that would self-style themselves in such a manner. It's all right for "believers" to insult other believers who do not share their version of the Bahai Faith? It's all right for "believers" to gang together and undermine justly established systems of voting, "bookburning" forums others, Bahai and non-Bahai, wish to create? That's "liberal," "open-minded," "enlightened," "modern," "pious" behavior? Anyone who questions such gangland tactics is a covenant breaker or miscreant? Fundamentalists never identify themselves as such, in Xianity, Islam, ect.... >Just a an example, I noticed from his post that Theo was hurt by these >labels that educated, thoughtful, and progressive people would not choose >for themselves. The subtext of these characterizations are clear: those >that don't agree with you or oppose you are retrograde barbarians. I >suggest that you take a different approach in your communications. The subtext of many Bahais is blatant.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 10:17 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 1:20 PM To: UHJ Cc: talisman Subject: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I fervently ask you to do something to stem the flood of fundamentalist fanaticism that many Bahais and non-Bahais believe has overwhelmed the Bahai Faith, reducing it to a gross distortion of its broad and liberal Teachings, and protect the Usenet interest poll on talk.religion.bahai from being once again a victim of Bahai intolerance. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at --------begin forwarded message from talisman: Juan Cole, Professor of history at the University of Michigan, wrote: Actually, there are two issues. One is that as a social scientist I certainly have the right to discern in the Baha'i community persons with liberal and persons with conservative views. How could we do a sociological study of the community that ignored such divisions? They are certainly visible in email networks. The second issue is my human rights protest against the manner in which the group I am calling conservative or fundamentalist has misused its control over the institution of the learned to persecute the group I am calling liberal. Richard calls such a protest "mud-slinging." But it is apparently not mud-slinging when conservative Baha'is falsely accuse liberal Baha'is of being covenant breakers. It is not mud-slinging when anyone who dares protest the silencing of people is accused by conservatives of false pride or even of mental imbalance or of making a bid for dictatorial leadership. If someone believes that human beings are not related to the other primates and that the primates do not have a common ancestor; and if the person who rejects all this scientific data does so on the basis of a literalist reading of scripture; and if that person is willing to put a literalist reading of scripture above vast amounts of scientific data that even a layperson can easily grasp; then that person holds at least one fundamentalist view. Richard wants to prevent me from characterizing that view as fundamentalist. There is another word for it, of course, if one likes. `Abdu'l-Baha said that when religion contradicts science it becomes superstition. So we can call an anti-evolutionary stance simply "superstitious" if you like. In that case there would be those Baha'is who really believed in the unity of science, and those who have fallen into superstition. It is `Abdu'l-Baha's word. As for the fight, well, I didn't start any fights. On Talisman I, I kept pleading for tolerance for all views. I never said a fellow Baha'i was a covenant breaker or "not a Baha'i." My pleas for toleration were rejected by the Baha'i conservatives, who ganged up with the Baha'i institutions to launch an inquisition and persecution of liberal Baha'i posters. That is how we got to where we are today. It was naked, unprovoked aggression on the part of the conservatives for whom Richard keeps doing special pleading. And that naked aggression has continued, against Michael McKenny and now others. I will condemn it till my last dying breath. It is a permanent stain upon the faith of Baha'u'llah, which should have brought universal love and tolerance and instead has fallen into the hands of superstitious Inquisitors. And what did it all buy them? If they wanted to close down academic discussion, well, the number of academic email lists has multiplied and become even more institutionalized. If they wanted to impose limits on email debate, they have failed. If they wanted to bring Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl and others to heel, they have failed. All they have accomplished is to contravene the constitution of the universal house of justice itself, which mandates the protection of individual Baha'i rights, to contravene the letter and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to make the Baha'i faith into just another literalist, superstitious religion. Is this what `Abdu'l-Baha promised to Dr. Auguste Forel? cheers Juan At 11:26 AM 12/16/97 -0600, Richard C. Logan wrote: >>Well I do think that there is great virtue in characterizing intellectual >>and political positions. Further, I would be strongly suspicious of any >>view of unity that did not allow for honorable diversity within it. And I >>certainly hope that this is not merely a "liberal" position. > > >Juan is NOT denying this is a FIGHT. You tell me how fighting is an >expression of unity. People seem to want to bend over backwards to make >excuses for what Juan Cole is doing. One should condemn Juan or belittle >his accomplishments but we are not required to make excuses for all of >this mudslinging. > >Richard C. Logan >Editor: Unified Star >nineteen@door.net >Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock >https://door.net/nineteen/ > >The further you go, >the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 8:48 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) -----Original Message----- From: David Bikman To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 7:25 AM Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) >Mr. Glaysher, > >What exactly do you want the House of Justice to do? While I don't necessarily believe it's my place to tell the UHJ what to do, I would think for starters it might want to recognize the extent to which a fanatical mindset has taken over among the rank and file, as well some in the administration below it.... I would think it might want to make clear to all that witch hunts and bookburning and public whippings are a little too overly zealous.... As it appears to me now, too often the literal-minded are allowed to run wild.... A few unambiguous statements along these lines, I would think, might go a long way toward reviving the broad, open, universal religion the Founders talked about.... Of course, as for all Bahais, words would have to be followed by deeds.... Talk.religion.bahai would be a most apropos occasion, providing evidence and restoring confidence and trust, clearing the air, as it were, perhaps for many.... > >David Bikman > >-- >you wrote: > >> Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >> >> I fervently ask you to do something to stem the flood of >> fundamentalist fanaticism that many Bahais and non-Bahais >> believe has overwhelmed the Bahai Faith, reducing it to a >> gross distortion of its broad and liberal Teachings, and >> protect the Usenet interest poll on talk.religion.bahai from >> being once again a victim of Bahai intolerance. >> >>Frederick Glaysher Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 12:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: What exactly do you want the House of Justice to do? Frederick - That posting would, in my opinion, violate list guidelines. The following is taken from the list guidelines: 1. The principle of Baha'i consultation, applied to Baha'i Studies topics, is the watchward of this list. Arguing, in a negative way, is strongly discouraged. (Although, arguing, in the sense of presenting reasoned arguments, is desirable.) To be more specific, flaming (attacking others), gossip, backbiting, slander, libel, name-calling (conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, fascist, anti-intellectual, etc.), character deprecation, partisan political discussion, a narrow and divisive use of labels (such as scholar and intellectual), etc. are contrary to the spirit of the list. The means to discover truth is unity, realized in a clash of differing opinons, not of conflicting personalities. Kindness and tolerance for the views of others are heartily recommended. Moreover, the listowner's vision for the Baha'i Studies list (which seems to have been supported by consultations among list members) is that we become a workshop for applying the art of a loving, non-judgmental, full, frank, honest, courteous, and tactful consultation to Baha'i studies/scholarship and deepening. It would seem that such an approach would contrast markedly with the more adversarial form of communication so common today. 2. Please avoid posting messages which oppose, or question, the actions, policies, or members of a Baha'i institution. Messages stating that a particular administrative decision should be changed, which attempt to find a way to have it reconsidered, as well as discussions of appeals or petitions to administrative bodies, regardless of their nature and possible merit, are discouraged. Offers of service, as with the "think tank" concept, are certainly encouraged. Mark ---------- From: Baha'i World Centre[SMTP:secretariat@bwc.org] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 6:09 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Proposed newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transmitted by email TO: Mr. Frederick Glaysher DATE: 19 December 1997 Email address: FG@hotmail.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MESSAGE: The Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to your email of 20 November 1997 concerning the proposed Internet newsgroup "talk.religion.bahai." To a previous inquiry about the proposal addressed by an individual to the House of Justice, we conveyed the following reply on its behalf: The House of Justice does not feel that it can comment on the validity or appropriateness of various reasons for voting for or against the proposed newsgroup. Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their understanding of the principles of the Faith. The clear purpose of this statement was to indicate that the House of Justice did not wish to get involved in this matter, since it feels that the friends should not need its guidance in this instance and are free to make their own decision. Department of the Secretariat ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 7:48 AM To: bahai-st; h-bahai; talisman Subject: Response from UHJ *The Baha'i Studies List* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Transmitted by email TO: Mr. Frederick Glaysher DATE: 19 December 1997 Email address: FG@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - MESSAGE: The Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to your email of 20 November 1997 concerning the proposed Internet newsgroup "talk.religion.bahai." To a previous inquiry about the proposal addressed by an individual to the House of Justice, we conveyed the following reply on its behalf: The House of Justice does not feel that it can comment on the validity or appropriateness of various reasons for voting for or against the proposed newsgroup. Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their understanding of the principles of the Faith. The clear purpose of this statement was to indicate that the House of Justice did not wish to get involved in this matter, since it feels that the friends should not need its guidance in this instance and are free to make their own decision. Department of the Secretariat - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 7:48 AM To: bahai-st; h-bahai; talisman Subject: Response from UHJ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Transmitted by email TO: Mr. Frederick Glaysher DATE: 19 December 1997 Email address: FG@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - MESSAGE: The Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to your email of 20 November 1997 concerning the proposed Internet newsgroup "talk.religion.bahai." To a previous inquiry about the proposal addressed by an individual to the House of Justice, we conveyed the following reply on its behalf: The House of Justice does not feel that it can comment on the validity or appropriateness of various reasons for voting for or against the proposed newsgroup. Individual Baha'is who are interested in the matter must come to their own decision, based upon the dictates of their conscience and their understanding of the principles of the Faith. The clear purpose of this statement was to indicate that the House of Justice did not wish to get involved in this matter, since it feels that the friends should not need its guidance in this instance and are free to make their own decision. Department of the Secretariat ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 1:49 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Response from UHJ Dear Fred, I'm returning this to you unposted as this newsgroup is not for the discussion or campaigning for the creation of other newsgroups. We are happy to post RFDs and CFVs. All other discussion should take place at the other appropriate newsgroups such as news.group. Nor does your posting appear to be about the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith which is what srb is all about per the charter of srb. Thank you for your participation, Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > Transmitted by email > > TO: Mr. Frederick Glaysher DATE: 19 December 1997 > > Email address: FG@hotmail.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > MESSAGE: > > The Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to your > email of 20 November 1997 concerning the proposed Internet newsgroup > "talk.religion.bahai." > > To a previous inquiry about the proposal addressed by an individual to > the House of Justice, we conveyed the following reply on its behalf: > > The House of Justice does not feel that it can comment on the validity > or appropriateness of various reasons for voting for or against the > proposed newsgroup. Individual Baha'is who are interested in the > matter must come to their own decision, based upon the dictates of > their conscience and their understanding of the principles of the > Faith. > > The clear purpose of this statement was to indicate that the House of > Justice > did not wish to get involved in this matter, since it feels that the friends > should not need its guidance in this instance and are free to make their own > decision. > > Department of the Secretariat > > > > > > ---------- From: whateverman[SMTP:whateverman@home.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 1997 5:35 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Hi Fred. I hope this isn't intruding, but I'd love to see t.r.b. come to fruition. If there's anything I can do, let me know... -- Whateverman Email is good, so long as yer able to send it to whateverman at erols dot com "As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly." --Samuel Johnson ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 1997 11:23 AM To: Mark A. Foster; talisman; UHJ Subject: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Thank you for your email response of 19 December 1997. I have carefully read and considered it. I am concerned that it does not evince an understanding of the unusual nature of Usenet interest polling but seems to think of it as though it were a normal democratic national election of some sort. With all respect and humility, permit me to say that your repeated emphasis on conscience fails to take into account the fact that Bahais actually did deprive other people, Bahais and non-Bahais, of the rights of their own consciences during the last massive NO vote and will be doing so again if they vote NO a second time. Every indication suggests that Bahais are about to make the same mistake. I am concerned that your response to me, as your earlier response to Mr. Roger Reini, may be misconstrued by such Bahais as giving your blessing to them, condoning their onslaught against talk.religion.bahai, as have the repeated interference and intrigues of the Co-ordinating Committe for the Bahai Computer and Communication Association (BCCA). I ask you to consult with a Bahai who is actually well versed in the subtleties of Usenet interest polling, not "voting" in the everyday sense of the word. I suggest Roger Reini, (rreini@wwnet.com) to whom you allude. I ask you to reflect on these words by a highly respected non-Bahai, Russ Allbery, much involved with Usenet newsgroup creation, on the general consensus that exists on reasons for voting: "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." (Message-ID: ) Because Bahais have already abused the interest polling system, analogous to what Baha'u'llah denounced in the Kitab-I-Aqdas as the "destruction of books," electronic books or magazines in this context, and appear about to do so again, actually smashing or keeping the printing press switch from being turned on, I appeal to you once more to attempt to understand the nature of the system governing Usenet and to provide fundamentalist Bahais with the guidance they apparently need in order to allow other people the sanctity of their own God-given consciences, and a forum within which to express themselves. I appeal to you to do what is in the best interest of the Bahai Faith. I can't imagine how the interest polling can possibly proceed in a just and fair manner without your mastering the difficult issues involved and rendering further guidance to Bahais. With sincere and heartfelt respect for your office, Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 1997 1:23 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: hart@lycosemail.com[SMTP:hart@lycosemail.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 1997 6:16 PM To: Talisman Subject: Catch-22 in Faith Hello Talisman, I was a Baha'i for about 21 years and have since gone on to other things in my independent investigation of the truth. I still have much good will toward the Faith and I would like to make an observation: I feel the Baha'i Faith is in a Catch-22 situation, certainly in the United States, and possibly in other countries as well. By this I mean that the very fact that the 'real' membership in the Faith in the U. S. is so low (anywhere from about 30,000 to 80,000 depending on the source of the statistics) hampers its growth. From my experience, most people who are in the market for a new religion are looking for a lot more than religious 'truth' and challenging dogma when they choose a religion. Many are looking for a religious community where they can feel security, companionship, as well as explore spiritual matters. Many can overlook various problems they may have with what they preceive as the 'truth' of a religion (or lack thereof) and the dogma, as long as the above qualities are present. Often potential converts to the Faith, when they learn of the extremely low numbers, decide that they do not what to be, in essence, 'pioneers'. They want companionship, a certain deg! ree of security, and a candid and open-minded atmosphere where they can discuss things freely. During my time as a Baha'i, I saw potential converts lied to by Baha'is regarding the membership of the Faith. The Baha'is, especially the Baha'i leadership, have always grossly inflated the 'official' numbers in order to present an inaccurate picture to the world (as well as to individuals considering conversion) and to make the Faith seem much more successful and influencial than it really is. The Faith is really a 'footnote' religion, in my view, and all the peace/race unity statements and p. r. in the world will not change this. I do not know how to solve the above problem, except to be completely honest and open to the public and to people who may be interested in the Faith. It does little good to 'hide' things regarding the Faith that may be unpleasant or misunderstood, intending to reveal these things later when the new Baha'i has been in the Faith for a few years. If people feel that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will leave or become disenchanted. Believe me, I observed this phenomenon over and over during my years as a Baha'i. These are just some friendly observations from someone who is familiar with Baha'i matters. Wishing everyone the best. Shalom. Scott ________________________________________________________ Get FREE personalized email at https://www.lycosemail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:22 AM To: talisman; UHJ Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) Roger Reini wrote in message <349E655F.7F72@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: >> >> Thank you for your email response of 19 December 1997. >> >> I have carefully read and considered it. I am concerned that >> it does not evince an understanding of the unusual nature of >> Usenet interest polling but seems to think of it as though it >> were a normal democratic national election of some sort. > >When I originally asked the Universal House of Justice to consider the >issue, I supplied an extensive background file, the bulk of which was a >Joe Bernstein post from February 1997 (taken from the first >talk.religion.bahai discussion). This post listed the traditional >reasons and rationales for voting. Joe Bernstein, "CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals." > >When the House issued its advice, it was aware of these issues. I am >sure that its advice reflected this awareness. I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and made it appear a normal type of election voting. If it was aware of the nature of interest polling, it's disregarding the whole Usenet system. Many serious questions would result if that's the case for Usenet and Bahais, I would think.... > >If the House wished to consult with me on this issue (as you suggest), I >would be honored and willing to do so. Personally, I think this >unlikely, but you never know. Well, I hope they do because whoever advised them last time must have given them an inaccurate understanding of interest polling. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) If anyone can more clearly articulate than I have in my "To UHJ #9" the nature of interest polling, please write the UHJ at secretariat@bwc.org I'm forwarding this message to the UHJ as a further plea that they take the time and find the people capable of helping them understand what interest polling is actually all about.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 1:22 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: Dale Grider[SMTP:howdybud@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 7:06 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fireside Dear Baha'i brother, The Fireside Letters is a website of vital importance to the Baha'i mandate to "independently investigate" for truth. In its present "book" type format it will admitedly involve the patience of a true seeker willing to spend the time to read it. I am certainly open for suggestions that might improve the palatability of the very important information that is there. But I suppose I have expected that Baha'is, more than most, should be expected to be hungry do absorb and digest any information that helps clarify their perspective.This seems a vital part of Baha'i belief. Thoroughly legitimate study in any investigation that is genuine, actually rests more critically upon full consideration of opposing viewpoints and perspectives than it does confirming ideas. One must be able to consider how opposing concepts might, or might not, genuinely bear upon one's present level of understanding and belief. Then one can honestly grow in understanding from a genuinely informed vantage point. The old saying is that one can "miss the forest for the trees". One can be too close and involved in what one assumes to be true making one's willingness to step back and see ideas in a larger context absolutely critical. I would think, at any rate, that the introduction at the beginning of volume 1 would be enough of a "teaser" to get the spiritual seeker interested. For myself, the reading takes off if one can just get started (that is, if one has a genuine interest in the considerations and issues that face the Baha'i adherent as he or she confronts the Christian perspective.) But how could a Baha'i be anything less than anxiously interested in such consideration? As the bedrock dogma exists within Baha'i theology that all major religions are really the same at their root level and differences are either only trivial or illusory ("seeming" as Baha'i writers allege), then the Fireside Letters exist as an imperative consideration, whether in a passively "easy" format, or one that takes some work and reading. Perhaps the person visiting the site could be advised to copy and paste volumes into their Word Processing application to be printed out or read at leisure off line? I have often done this in many instances with lengthy Baha'i writings like Some Answered Questions, and Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The library I have built in my own "search" for truth consists as much or more of opposing viewpoints that I have worked through as affirming ones. Through facing and investiagting such considerations comes true growth. Another cliche' that comes to mind says something about the wasted energy of "preaching to the choir" (those already of like mind who will not provide the opportunity for you to test your ideas). Please reconsider spending some time reading through the volumes. I know that you will discover some considerations that have never occured to you (and didn't to me either until the engaging discussion that is the Fireside Letters transpired). In another vein I am interested in further critical input from Baha'is and have every expectation that editing and growth toward clarity of the Baha'i perspective can come from input from folks like yourself. In that sense my invitiation is one that provides the Baha'i community a chance to shape to some extent just what the Fireside Letters consists of. My search for truth is certainly still evolving. Please refer others to the site and invite them as well to offer critical feedback which will be taken in a spirit of peace and the quest for truth. The URL for the Firside Letters is; https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.html Thanks, Dale:) ---------- From: Dale Grider[SMTP:howdybud@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 7:09 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Fireside/ Christian perspective considered Dear Baha'i brother, The Fireside Letters is a website of vital importance to the Baha'i mandate to "independently investigate" for truth. In its present "book" type format it will admitedly involve the patience of a true seeker willing to spend the time to read it. I am certainly open for suggestions that might improve the palatability of the very important information that is there. But I suppose I have expected that Baha'is, more than most, should be expected to be hungry do absorb and digest any information that helps clarify their perspective.This seems a vital part of Baha'i belief. Thoroughly legitimate study in any investigation that is genuine, actually rests more critically upon full consideration of opposing viewpoints and perspectives than it does confirming ideas. One must be able to consider how opposing concepts might, or might not, genuinely bear upon one's present level of understanding and belief. Then one can honestly grow in understanding from a genuinely informed vantage point. The old saying is that one can "miss the forest for the trees". One can be too close and involved in what one assumes to be true making one's willingness to step back and see ideas in a larger context absolutely critical. I would think, at any rate, that the introduction at the beginning of volume 1 would be enough of a "teaser" to get the spiritual seeker interested. For myself, the reading takes off if one can just get started (that is, if one has a genuine interest in the considerations and issues that face the Baha'i adherent as he or she confronts the Christian perspective.) But how could a Baha'i be anything less than anxiously interested in such consideration? As the bedrock dogma exists within Baha'i theology that all major religions are really the same at their root level and differences are either only trivial or illusory ("seeming" as Baha'i writers allege), then the Fireside Letters exist as an imperative consideration, whether in a passively "easy" format, or one that takes some work and reading. Perhaps the person visiting the site could be advised to copy and paste volumes into their Word Processing application to be printed out or read at leisure off line? I have often done this in many instances with lengthy Baha'i writings like Some Answered Questions, and Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The library I have built in my own "search" for truth consists as much or more of opposing viewpoints that I have worked through as affirming ones. Through facing and investiagting such considerations comes true growth. Another cliche' that comes to mind says something about the wasted energy of "preaching to the choir" (those already of like mind who will not provide the opportunity for you to test your ideas). Please reconsider spending some time reading through the volumes. I know that you will discover some considerations that have never occured to you (and didn't to me either until the engaging discussion that is the Fireside Letters transpired). In another vein I am interested in further critical input from Baha'is and have every expectation that editing and growth toward clarity of the Baha'i perspective can come from input from folks like yourself. In that sense my invitiation is one that provides the Baha'i community a chance to shape to some extent just what the Fireside Letters consists of. My search for truth is certainly still evolving. Please refer others to the site and invite them as well to offer critical feedback which will be taken in a spirit of peace and the quest for truth. The URL for the Firside Letters is; https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.html Thanks, Dale:) ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 10:08 AM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:43 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: house@usq.edu.au; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) SOME KIND OF WEIRD CODE THING IS FAILING TO PUT IN THE ">" FOR THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. SORRY TO HAVE TO USE CAPS. -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: fglaysh@hotmail.com ; talisman@umich.edu Cc: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk ; house@usq.edu.au Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 4:12 PM Subject: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) Mr. Glaysher, This is really becoming rather tedious in its repetition. I find your opinions about the communications from the BWC to be so wildly speculative as to be of very little value, and they continue to make it difficult to stomach the possibility of supporting t.r.b. SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY.... For anyone that saw the original "pro-t.r.b." question that was put to the Universal House of Justice, it was obvious that the reply from the BWC neither supported nor opposed t.r.b., and they had no intent to send a coded "anti-t.r.b." message. Given the fact that the tone of the question was "pro-t.r.b.", the fact that the BWC declined to warn the questioner away from a "pro-t.r.b." opinion could easily been seen as implicit support of the legitimacy some "pro-t.r.b." views. NOT SO OBVIOUS AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.... IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MANY BAHAIS, ON BAHAI-DISCUSS AND ELSEWHERE, HAVE TAKEN THE UHJ'S MESSAGE AS A CODED NOD TO ATTACK WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE NO VOTE.... Your attempts to over-interpret the message from the BWC in order to drum up support for a forum that will allow you to gain a wider audience for your frequently abusive and paranoid excesses and fanaticisms is discouraging. I AM REACTING TO THE MANNER IN WHICH MANY BAHAIS HAVE INTERPRETED THE UHJ'S MESSAGE. I HAVE TRIED NOT TO INTERPRET IT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU YOURSELF INTERPRET IN EXTENSIVELY IN THIS MESSAGE. I DON'T BELIEVE SUCH CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSTINGS ARE FAIR.... INCIDENTALLY, I DO NOT WANT AN UNMODERATED FORUM FOR MYSELF ALONE, THOUGH MANY HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS SUCH. RATHER, FOR ALL BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS, AS MADE CLEAR IN THE RFD.... As far as I know, you have provided *NO* coherent supporting analysis from any scholars in Baha'i studies (or other sources, etc.) as to the legitimacy of the use of the "book burning" comparison. I get the impression that you have discovered an emotionally laden issue that you have decided to use to flog your real or supposed opponents in the Baha'i community with (rather than explore consultatively). IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE BOOK BURNING ANALOGY IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ONE OF THE TEACHINGS TO COVER A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF REVELATION.... NO FLOGGING INTENDED.... RATHER, AN APT COMPARISON FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE LAST MASSIVE NO VOTE (691 REMEMBER) THAT DEPRIVED BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS THE CHANCE TO CREATE AND READ TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI..... I am also confused by the manner in which you consider the Usenet system to be analogous to some near-sacred social institution or democractic governmental entity. The nuances and minutae of the interest polling mechanism for newsgroup creation is something that you should hardly expect Baha'i institutions to gloriously advocate or become immersed in, especially given the loose "enforcement" of a voluntary set of ideas in such a chaotic and decentralized environment. BAHA'U'LLAH TEACHES WE SHOULD RESPECT THE LAWS OF ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS OF GOVERNING.... DO YOU ADVOCATE OTHERWISE? MANY, MANY INTERENT MANUALS HAVE PUBLISHED THE USENET CONSENSUS ON INTEREST POLLING AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO VOTES ARE AN ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM. AS A BAHAI, WHY ARE YOU NOT CONCERNED ABOUT BAHAI ABUSE OF INTEREST POLLING? USENET VOTING IS NOT THE CHAOS YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE. RUSS ALLBERY'S PASSAGE IN THE RFD MAKES THAT QUITE CLEAR. HE IS INCIDENTALLY A MEMBER OF THE USENET VOLUNTARY VOTETAKERS (UVV). IF BAHAIS WERE DESTROYING AND ATTACKING THE NEXT NATIONAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOULD THE INSTITUTIONS BE CONCERNED? I HUMBLY THINK SO.... While some of the consensus-driven aspects of the Usenet system are probably laudible in their democratic underpinnings, there are many other aspects of Usenet that are hardly compatible with Baha'i ideals of enlightened social/ethical systems. SO IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION TO UNDERMINE IT? BY ANALOGY, SHOULD BAHAIS BOMB AND DESTROY OTHER SOCIAL STRUCTURES THEY DISAGREE WITH OR THINK INCOMPATIABLE WITH BAHAI IDEALS? LOGICALLY EXTENDED, SUCH THINKING AMONG BAHAIS WORRIES ME A GREAT DEAL.... I hope I have been as clear as possible that the problems I have identified above seem counter-productive to a balanced "pro-t.r.b." agenda, and are obstacles to bringing about a positive acceptance of the legitimacy of an unmoderated usenet Baha'i forum. ARE YOU ADVOCATING VOTING NO? SUCH A VOTE WOULD BE ANOTHER DISGRACE FOR THE BAHAI FAITH AND WOULD DO MORE TO HARM ITS REPUTATION, AS RUSS ALLBERY POINTS OUT IN THE RFD, THAN ANYTHING THAT COULD EVER BE SAID ON TRB.... Feel free to further distribute or post responses elsewhere, but if doing so, please remove Mr. Shuette's name/address (unless he has instructed otherwise). Eric D. Pierce (home email: EPierce@ns.net) Sacramento, California - USA cc: talisman@umich.edu, "Chris Manvell" , "Ron House" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6 Jan 98 at 7:08, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Copies to: "UHJ" > Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) > Date sent: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:08:06 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette > To: talisman@umich.edu > Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:13 AM > Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) > > > >Fred Glaysher wrote: > > > >>> I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that > >>> it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's > >>> piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to > >>> them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and > >>> made it appear a normal type of election voting. > > > >Don C commented: > >>And perhaps they believe they have more important topics to consult on. [WS:] > >And I'll add: > > > >In any case, Fred's request is not internally consistent. The UHJ has > >taken a hands-off, let everyone decide for themselves what to do position, > >which seems exactly what Fred wanted. What MORE does he want, now? [FG:] > I don't believe the UHJ has taken a "hands-off" position. The entire > notion of conscience is inappropriate to an interest poll. They entered > the discussion and have now affected it, for some, if not many, and > I would think it only reasonable to ascertain whether or not they truly > understand what they are doing.... I don't believe so.... It appears to > me they must have been misinformed. Their counsel of "conscience" > is actually tantamount to supporting voter fraud, in, let's say, a > national election in Canada or the United States.... I don't believe > the UHJ would or should do such a thing. Ergo, I assume someone > in the Secretariat failed them or they received flawed advice on > the nature of Usenet interest polling--notice, not "voting." [WS:] > >If the UHJ took a position FOR the newsgroup, wouldn't that be precisely > >the sort of "politically" motivated and centrally-sponsored group voting > >that he's been criticizing so vehemently for months as inappropriate or > >criminal? [FG:] > I am not advocating that the UHJ should take a position FOR > talk.religion.bahai. Rather, that they not take a position AGAINST > trb, which they have, I hope, inadvertently done.... Their "conscience" > is, by the way, against the consciences of many others, Bahai and > non-Bahai.... If one fully understands interest polling, it is reminiscent > of the hatred and passion that often animates old world politics and > religious intrigues.... 100+ people cannot honestly and fairly be > denied their right to form a newsgroup within which to express their > consciences. Baha'u'llah's injunction against the "destruction of > books" fits this context quite well.... To suppress trb would be > tantamount to a violation of his stricture in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.... > If the UHJ knowingly chooses to do that, fine, it may.... But I hope > for better.... [WS:] > >Call the vote, already. If it loses, wait 6 months, prove TRB has value > >with a longer track record, and call another vote. I just can't believe > >that all this endless jockeying around is accomplishing anything useful. [FG:] > Why would it lose? On what basis? Political and religious passion > and opposition are illegitimate reasons for voting NO. Over 5,000 > postings to alt.religion.bahai is more than sufficient proof that > 100+ people are interested in creating a newsgroup on the subject, > as are the over 1,200 different threads and over 513 different > individuals who posted up to October 1997. I can't believe all the > endless opposition to free speech and conscience that many > Bahais have displayed.... If the UHJ opposes trb, it should come > out in the open and say so, not pretend it's neutral by employing > strategems to justify and excuse the NO votes of fundamentalist > Bahais.... Again, I hope for better and will cc this message to > the UHJ to help them understand the nature of Usenet interest > polling.... > > >Wade > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric D. Pierce Information Technology Consultant Client-Server Database/PC Network Server Student Services Lassen Hall 1008 California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA desk phone (916) 278-7586 internet email: PierceED@csus.edu la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Incoming Electronic Communication Operations[SMTP:ieco@bwc.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:26 PM Subject: Your Message Has Been Received... Dear Friend, This is an automated acknowledgement. Your message regarding: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) has been received at the Baha'i World Centre.