From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 10:45 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell; Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>... >OK, here comes the line-by-line I've been wanting to do. It may or may >not agree with what other people are saying, but I think the final decision >on all points should be made by the proponents themselves. Thanks for taking the time.... >In news.groups on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >[snip]..... no problem with introduction > >>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. > >[Delete unnecessary paragraph and substitute the following] A whole lot of discussion went into that paragraph during August and September on alt.religion.bahai. I'd hate to throw all that away, for historical reasons if nothing else. The breakdown of figures I think further help to document how extensive the interest in trb really is.... Personally, I'd like to keep all this. > >After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the >proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need >for an unmoderated group. From April 1 to September 27, 1997, >over 2,863 messages were posted to alt.religion.bahai by people >with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This works >out to about 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages >per month for six months. During this time period, approximately >513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. > >[I've deleted the reference to talk.religion.bahai in the paragraph >below] Jonathan Grobe points out it was he who created alt.religion.bahai. I did not ask him to do so but am very grateful that he did. This morning, December 31, 1997, there are 4,975 messages on dejanews posted to arb since April 1, 1997. More than a little interest there, by anyone's fair-minded estimate, I would think.... > >>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com >>for alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time period. Please note that >>despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of >>posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the formation >>of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith in 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. > >[No change in this paragraph] > >>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. > >[rearranging paragraphs; word changes underlined] > >>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, >>large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, >>and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive >>crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been >>rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to >>this charter. >^^^^^^^^^^ Sure, "this charter" reads better. Move the paragraph makes sense. > >>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. > >In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups, >>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >>Baha'i faith. >[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition >for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not >be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."] Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith or any other faith.... I suggest: In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be considered an official organ of any religious organization, including the Bahai Faith. NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason trb should have one.... >>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >[I left out the "whipping post" paragraph because I don't think it >adds anything to the charter, but would not be upset if the proponents >decide to put it back in] Well, as long as there is a subordinate clause or language that clarifies the situation sufficiently, I'm willing to drop the whipping post passage though I believe it's only a fair compromise.... No one else seems willing to compromise. Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable, would be: As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional religion. For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable compromise and would delete the whipping post reference for this. > >>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. > >[Add paragraph] > >The CFV is usually posted twice over a 21-day period, and then the >votetaker tallies up the votes and the RESULT is posted to news. >announce.newgroups and news.groups. If after a 5-day waiting period, >there are no challenges to the RESULT, the group will be created if >the proposal passed. But if the proposal failed, then the proponent(s) >must wait six months before they try again. Soc.religion.bahai's interest poll was 236 YES: 48 NO. That's the usual ratio, roughly.... 30, 40, maybe 50 NO votes.... Anything beyond that, I'm certainly going to challenge and believe everyone interested in fairness and the preservation of Usenet as a system should.... The last sentence I would delete.... > >[I have mixed emotions about the Allbery quote. It seems kind of >long to me, and I wonder if it will backfire and just make people >angry. But I will leave that decision to the proponents here.] It's a lucid statement on interest polling that I believe should remain in so that Bahais reading the RFD understand what is involved.... Many claim they didn't understand the nature of interest polling last time. This passage helps educate them and ought to remain. If that is a basis for voting NO, David Lawrence and every techie on news.groups ought just give up right now....and create some other way of forming new groups.... >>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: > >> >>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 >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal" >>questions about the process. >> >>DISTRIBUTION: >> >[No problem with the distribution or listing of proponents] Okay. Thanks a lot, Henrietta, for going to all this trouble of considering this 3rd RFD. I appreciate it. All your suggestions are taken to heart here. I'm willing to incorporate the changes I've commented on. What do others think? Chris? Ron? Anyone else back yet? Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas! And even a more Happy New Year! 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, December 31, 1997 10:45 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>... >OK, here comes the line-by-line I've been wanting to do. It may or may >not agree with what other people are saying, but I think the final decision >on all points should be made by the proponents themselves. Thanks for taking the time.... >In news.groups on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >[snip]..... no problem with introduction > >>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. > >[Delete unnecessary paragraph and substitute the following] A whole lot of discussion went into that paragraph during August and September on alt.religion.bahai. I'd hate to throw all that away, for historical reasons if nothing else. The breakdown of figures I think further help to document how extensive the interest in trb really is.... Personally, I'd like to keep all this. > >After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the >proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need >for an unmoderated group. From April 1 to September 27, 1997, >over 2,863 messages were posted to alt.religion.bahai by people >with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This works >out to about 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages >per month for six months. During this time period, approximately >513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. > >[I've deleted the reference to talk.religion.bahai in the paragraph >below] Jonathan Grobe points out it was he who created alt.religion.bahai. I did not ask him to do so but am very grateful that he did. This morning, December 31, 1997, there are 4,975 messages on dejanews posted to arb since April 1, 1997. More than a little interest there, by anyone's fair-minded estimate, I would think.... > >>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com >>for alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time period. Please note that >>despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of >>posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the formation >>of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith in 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. > >[No change in this paragraph] > >>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. > >[rearranging paragraphs; word changes underlined] > >>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, >>large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, >>and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive >>crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been >>rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to >>this charter. >^^^^^^^^^^ Sure, "this charter" reads better. Move the paragraph makes sense. > >>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. > >In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups, >>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >>Baha'i faith. >[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition >for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not >be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."] Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith or any other faith.... I suggest: In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be considered an official organ of any religious organization, including the Bahai Faith. NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason trb should have one.... >>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >[I left out the "whipping post" paragraph because I don't think it >adds anything to the charter, but would not be upset if the proponents >decide to put it back in] Well, as long as there is a subordinate clause or language that clarifies the situation sufficiently, I'm willing to drop the whipping post passage though I believe it's only a fair compromise.... No one else seems willing to compromise. Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable, would be: As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional religion. For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable compromise and would delete the whipping post reference for this. > >>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. > >[Add paragraph] > >The CFV is usually posted twice over a 21-day period, and then the >votetaker tallies up the votes and the RESULT is posted to news. >announce.newgroups and news.groups. If after a 5-day waiting period, >there are no challenges to the RESULT, the group will be created if >the proposal passed. But if the proposal failed, then the proponent(s) >must wait six months before they try again. Soc.religion.bahai's interest poll was 236 YES: 48 NO. That's the usual ratio, roughly.... 30, 40, maybe 50 NO votes.... Anything beyond that, I'm certainly going to challenge and believe everyone interested in fairness and the preservation of Usenet as a system should.... The last sentence I would delete.... > >[I have mixed emotions about the Allbery quote. It seems kind of >long to me, and I wonder if it will backfire and just make people >angry. But I will leave that decision to the proponents here.] It's a lucid statement on interest polling that I believe should remain in so that Bahais reading the RFD understand what is involved.... Many claim they didn't understand the nature of interest polling last time. This passage helps educate them and ought to remain. If that is a basis for voting NO, David Lawrence and every techie on news.groups ought just give up right now....and create some other way of forming new groups.... >>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: > >> >>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 >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal" >>questions about the process. >> >>DISTRIBUTION: >> >[No problem with the distribution or listing of proponents] Okay. Thanks a lot, Henrietta, for going to all this trouble of considering this 3rd RFD. I appreciate it. All your suggestions are taken to heart here. I'm willing to incorporate the changes I've commented on. What do others think? Chris? Ron? Anyone else back yet? Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas! And even a more Happy New Year! 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, December 31, 1997 10:01 AM To: MusMan1 Subject: Re: Re:RFD:talk.religion.bahai MusMan1 wrote in message <19971227173201.MAA03109@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >Mainstream Baha'is can learn much from our Catholic heritage. Many netsurfers >will see a distinct parallel between "stacking the deck" or "bringing out the >vote" Chicago-style and the Inquisition! >Robin Peters Would you consider also posting the email message you sent me to news.groups? I think it offers some useful insight into the trb discussion.... 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, December 31, 1997 10:01 AM Subject: Re: Re:RFD:talk.religion.bahai MusMan1 wrote in message <19971227173201.MAA03109@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >Mainstream Baha'is can learn much from our Catholic heritage. Many netsurfers >will see a distinct parallel between "stacking the deck" or "bringing out the >vote" Chicago-style and the Inquisition! >Robin Peters Would you consider also posting the email message you sent me to news.groups? I think it offers some useful insight into the trb discussion.... 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, December 29, 1997 7:52 AM To: Dale Grider Subject: Re: Fireside Could you post this to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai? You might modify it slightly to connect with the ongoing discussion for forming talk.religion.bahai. There may be people on both who would be interested in your site. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet beyond the opening page but will.... I wish you luck. Brace yourself. They'll probably start attacking you too before long.... 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: Dale Grider To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:04 AM 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.ht ml > >Thanks, >Dale:) > ---------- 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:22 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:20 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Off to visit family for the holidays.... By for now.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>... >OK, here comes the line-by-line I've been wanting to do. It may or may >not agree with what other people are saying, but I think the final decision >on all points should be made by the proponents themselves. > >In news.groups on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >[snip]..... no problem with introduction > >>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. > >[Delete unnecessary paragraph and substitute the following] > >After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the >proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need >for an unmoderated group. From April 1 to September 27, 1997, >over 2,863 messages were posted to alt.religion.bahai by people >with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This works >out to about 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages >per month for six months. During this time period, approximately >513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. > >[I've deleted the reference to talk.religion.bahai in the paragraph >below] > >>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com >>for alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time period. Please note that >>despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of >>posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the formation >>of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith in 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. > >[No change in this paragraph] > >>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. > >[rearranging paragraphs; word changes underlined] > >>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, >>large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, >>and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive >>crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been >>rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to >>this charter. >^^^^^^^^^^ > >>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. > >In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups, >>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >>Baha'i faith. >[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition >for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not >be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."] > >>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >[I left out the "whipping post" paragraph because I don't think it >adds anything to the charter, but would not be upset if the proponents >decide to put it back in] > >>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. > >[Add paragraph] > >The CFV is usually posted twice over a 21-day period, and then the >votetaker tallies up the votes and the RESULT is posted to news. >announce.newgroups and news.groups. If after a 5-day waiting period, >there are no challenges to the RESULT, the group will be created if >the proposal passed. But if the proposal failed, then the proponent(s) >must wait six months before they try again. > >[I have mixed emotions about the Allbery quote. It seems kind of >long to me, and I wonder if it will backfire and just make people >angry. But I will leave that decision to the proponents here.] > >>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: > >> >>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 >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal" >>questions about the process. >> >>DISTRIBUTION: >> >[No problem with the distribution or listing of proponents] ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 1997 11:09 AM To: whateverman@erols.com Subject: trb help Please join the discussion and post to news.groups whatever you think.... Many Bahais are simply afraid to do so.... 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: whateverman >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 4:37 PM >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: Monday, December 22, 1997 11:06 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: trb Thanks, Chris. I deeply regret all this.... I just don't see any alternative given the fanatical opposition to trb. The corruption is at the top, or it isn't, and the UHJ has to say so for the vote to proceed properly and fairly. I know and understand it's an outrage to news.groupies of whatever religion or persuasion. I'm very concerned that they're all attacking me for it. I'm almost in shock that they don't understand Bahais haven't played by the rules and aren't going to.... The whole point of my reposting Professor Cole's criticisms has been to show people there's a very long historical problem in the Bahai Faith with freedom of speech, affecting many, many people, not just me.... I think that that is essential for people to know. It broadens and deepens the context of what trb is really all about.... I don't know what else I can possibly do. To just wait for all the NO votes to role in and then accept another inevitable defeat and another six month wait seems foolish.... I've just posted a response to the UHJ and will now go silent for a week or so, until they answer, and hope things cool off for a while since nothing can really be done till after Jan. 4th. Whatever happens, thanks for all your help and support. I'm deeply grateful.... 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: Chris Stone Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 4:20 PM Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) >Dave Ratcliffe wrote in article ><34a223e5.60305958@news.microserve.net>... > >> If those unfamiliar with the group creation process see Fred "getting away" >> with this who will convince them that it's not kosher when _they_ come in >> the door with a proposal some time in the future? > >I am compelled to point out that the whole reason Fred has been posting the >communications from Bahai institutions is that *he* saw *other* people >"getting away" with abuse of news.groups -- and getting away with it >successfully enough to torpedo his own proposal. > >If we wanted to set a good example for people new to news.groups, we should >have taken action after s.c.indian.jammu-kashmir, s.c.macedonia, >s.c.azerbaijan, rec.pets.cats.*, the first t.r.bahai proposal, and the laundry >list of other disgraceful flamewars we've had here. If you want people to >behave well, don't furnish them with every incentive to *misbehave*. > >All the fiascos listed above share one thing in common: those who shouted the >loudest carried the day, regardless of whether or not they were in the right. >While I would personally rather not see all of Fred's communications with >Bahai bodies in news.groups, I cannot blame him for internalizing this lesson. > 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, December 21, 1997 11:34 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) Thanks, Chris. I deeply regret all this.... I just don't see any alternative given the fanatical opposition to trb. The corruption is at the top, or it isn't, and the UHJ has to say so for the vote to proceed properly and fairly. I know and understand it's an outrage to news.groupies of whatever religion or persuasion. I'm very concerned that they're all attacking me for it. I'm almost in shock that they don't understand Bahais haven't played by the rules and aren't going to.... I don't know what else I can possibly do. To just wait for all the NO votes to role in and then accept another inevitable defeat and another six month wait seems foolish.... I've just posted a response to the UHJ and will now go silent for a week or so, until they answer, and hope things cool off for a while since nothing can really be done till after Jan. 4th. Whatever happens, thanks for all your help and support. I'm deeply grateful.... 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: Chris Stone Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 4:20 PM Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) >Dave Ratcliffe wrote in article ><34a223e5.60305958@news.microserve.net>... > >> If those unfamiliar with the group creation process see Fred "getting away" >> with this who will convince them that it's not kosher when _they_ come in >> the door with a proposal some time in the future? > >I am compelled to point out that the whole reason Fred has been posting the >communications from Bahai institutions is that *he* saw *other* people >"getting away" with abuse of news.groups -- and getting away with it >successfully enough to torpedo his own proposal. > >If we wanted to set a good example for people new to news.groups, we should >have taken action after s.c.indian.jammu-kashmir, s.c.macedonia, >s.c.azerbaijan, rec.pets.cats.*, the first t.r.bahai proposal, and the laundry >list of other disgraceful flamewars we've had here. If you want people to >behave well, don't furnish them with every incentive to *misbehave*. > >All the fiascos listed above share one thing in common: those who shouted the >loudest carried the day, regardless of whether or not they were in the right. >While I would personally rather not see all of Fred's communications with >Bahai bodies in news.groups, I cannot blame him for internalizing this lesson. > ---------- 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 1997 11:23 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 1997 10:50 AM To: whateverman@home.edu Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Please join the discussion and post to news.groups whatever you think.... Many Bahais are simply quite afraid to do so.... 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: whateverman To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 4:37 PM 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: Friday, December 19, 1997 12:13 PM 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: 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 7:48 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 7:12 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) Glaysher writes >Chris, > >It's occurred to me that we ought to be concerned about a >NO vote launched now by the Muslims.... In order to discredit >Bahais and make them appear to be oppressive.... What do >you think? I'm surprised and worried by Afshin's backing out.... >He may have other motives.... Several NO votes were definitely >falsified last time by someone with an Islamic name in Pakistan >somewhere.... They all bounced when I tested them in May or >June.... >There are three ways that Muslims could view this group (as far as I can >see, which at the moment is not very far!) -- >1. Totally disinterested. >2. An opportunity to publicly discredit the Baha'is >3. An outlet for Baha'i propaganda that must be opposed. I agree with your comments. There's a fourth and a fifth group. Bahais who'd be happy to see it fail or be happy to appear to be Muslims, or to have people think they are, while registering their NO votes.... It seems to me few Bahais have considered to what extent Muslims might seek to attack the Faith in this way and ought to consider voting YES to protect the Faith for this reason. I'd you to consider broaching the whole issue on bahai-discuss and elsewhere, talisman perhaps. 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 18, 1997 3:13 PM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) Chris, It's occurred to me that we ought to be concerned about a NO vote launched now by the Muslims.... In order to discredit Bahais and make them appear to be oppressive.... What do you think? I'm surprised and worried by Afshin's backing out.... He may have other motives.... Several NO votes were definitely falsified last time by someone with an Islamic name in Pakistan somewhere.... They all bounced when I tested them in May or June.... 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: nokhodchi@hotmail.com Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 1:11 PM Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) >Peace, > >It seems that this idea of me being a coproponent is far too >controversial for the moment. In light of this I thik it best that I >don't become a co-proponent. But I will tell you one thing, many >non-bahais are watching the outcome of this vote carefully. It would tell >a lot about the sort of open-mindedness that bahais have. Currently of >the major religious moderated newsgroups the bahais are the worst of the >lot when it comes to censorship (soc.religion.bahai). Maybe the bahais >will take this goden opprtunity to atealst pay token service to the >concept of "independent investigation of truth" that supposedly is a >religious doctrine. It makes me wonder if that wasn't a doctrine how bad >of censors the moderators of soc.religion.bahai would have been . >Anyways, good luck to you all and remember many opinions will be made and >broken based on the result of that vote. > >Afshin Afrashteh >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >afrashteh@geocities.com > > > >In article <678lf8$8cp@news2.zippo.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> Chris wrote in message ... >> >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher >> > wrote to Afshin Afrashteh: >> >>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 Bahai Faith... >> > >> >To Fred: >> > >> >Dear Fred, >> > >> >I appreciate the reasons why you wish to have more proponents but I fail >> >to understand the logic of inviting an opponent of the Faith to be a >> >proponent and feel that it would be totally counter-productive. Please >> >bear in mind that our one goal at the present time is to get TRB on line >> >(I am sure that Afshin would agree with that). Anything that can cause >> >people to vote NO should be avoided -- I am sure we have anough YES >> >votes to get the group -- as it is the NO votes that can kill TRB in the >> >end. Already I have had three people write saying that they are >> >seriously considering withdrawing their support for TRB. Previously I >> >have managed to persuade them to stay positive but, this time round, I >> >do not have the time, not the energy, to write lots of posts defending >> >TRB, much as I would like to. It is the 'floating voters' who will make >> >or break the interest poll for TRB and it is the floating voters that >> >are beginning to show their concerns. >> >> The free speech and conscience that Abdu'l-Baha guaranteed >> was part of the Bahai revelation surely must extend to Muslims >> as well as Bahais, Christians, people uninterested in religion, >> and so, or it means nothing whatsoever.... I believe you, Roger >> Reini, and I were all surprised this past summer at how much >> productive dialogue went on between Bahais and Muslims.... >> >> They will have every right to post to trb when it's passed, and >> that fact ought to be recognized and protected, up front, here >> at the beginning. If Bahais wish to oppose and suppress the >> right of Muslims to express themselves in all good will and >> the sincerity of their own consciences, then fine.... Let them >> do it and make it apparent to others and the world what >> an unmitigated SHAM the Bahai Teachings are for many >> Bahais.... >> >> That's how I see it.... The problem lies with the intolerance >> of Bahais, many of whom wish to control and muzzle Muslims, >> as well as other Bahais. >> >> Afshin has said lots of things I don't believe or like, but I >> defend his right to say them and to be a coproponent, if he >> wishes.... >> >> Talk.religion.bahai should be an open forum for everyone, >> of whatever opinion or view or religion. I believe it would >> basically be an act of interreligious terrorism for Bahais >> to vote NO against it whether there's a Muslim coproponent >> or not. If he does choose to represent a large bloc of opinion >> by being a coproponent, that in itself would not constitute a >> legitimate reason for voting NO. Such a NO vote would be >> tantamount to throwing a bomb into a crowded market or >> bus.... >> >> Chris, I don't know what the "technical" grounds you refer >> to below could possibly be.... You have a veto in all things, >> and you can use it on this one too if you feel strongly about >> it.... But I see nothing wrong or contrary to Usenet >> guidelines in Afshin being a coproponent of >> talk.religion.bahai. If Bahais can't support freedom and >> religious conscience, let the Muslims.... Despite the >> overemphasis of the media on the negative, many of them >> do.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >> The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >> news.announce.newgroups, or at >> >> > >> >With best wishes, >> > >> >Chris. >> > >> >======================================================================= >> > >> >To Afshin: >> > >> >Dear Nokhodchi, >> > >> >I think you must realise that to have an opponent of the Baha'i Faith as >> >a proponent for a Baha'i newsgroup, while showing an incredible open- >> >mindedness, will almost certainly turn many members of the Baha'i >> >community against TRB. In your opposition to the Faith you are, of >> >course, following the dictates of your own conscience and doing what you >> >feel is right, and I, for one, would not in any way try to prevent that. >> >As an individual I have no cause for complaint against you and I find >> >your posts, while often irritating, generally courteous and certainly >> >thought provoking. Thus my opposing the suggestion that you become >> >proponent for TRB is purely on technical grounds and does not in any way >> >reflect against you as an individual. >> > >> >With Baha'i love, >> > >> >Chris. >> > >> >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. > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:55 AM To: almeena@emirates.net.ae Subject: Re: How can I write a letter to House of Justice Universal House of Justice: secretariat@bwc.org -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at almeena@emirates.net.ae wrote in message <882373891.84869122@dejanews.com>... >Can Any body E-Mail me the mail or E-Mail address of the Universal >House of Justice. > >Thanks. > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:55 AM Subject: Re: How can I write a letter to House of Justice Universal House of Justice: secretariat@bwc.org -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at almeena@emirates.net.ae wrote in message <882373891.84869122@dejanews.com>... >Can Any body E-Mail me the mail or E-Mail address of the Universal >House of Justice. > >Thanks. > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:45 AM Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) Kate Wrightson wrote in message <67b1de$6vo$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu>... >In article <678mgh$8ug@news2.zippo.com>, >Frederick Glaysher 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. > >Mr. Glaysher, please STOP. You have been asked time and again to stop >posting this material to news.groups, where it is decidedly off-topic. >Every time you post this kind of thing here, you increase the chances >that your RFD will not pass, which will probably represent to you more of >this 'fundamentalist fanaticism' on the part of USENET-using Baha'is, and >which will really be indicative of just how much you've managed to piss >off people trying to read news.groups for relevant postings. Kate, I respect your opinion. I can only say the repostings on censorship and other related issues are not I believe off-topic. They intimately relate to precisely the major issues underlying the proposal for talk.religion.bahai and the immense battle it has become to get it presented and passed.... They show there are Bahais on talisman@umich.edu and elsewhere who perceive the issues along similar lines as to those that have arisen with talk.religion.bahai. I'm really befuddled by your reactions and the emotion they seem to be filled with. I don't understand you. The proposal isn't going to pass unless the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) comes out in defense and support of free speech and religious conscience anyway.... That's the reality of where the Bahai Faith is today.... That's why it is relevant to appeal to them.... Indeed, imperative.... I'll grant it's difficult for non-Bahais and perhaps people not really interested in any religion to appreciate, but that's the way it is.... (Incidentally, not to be offensive, some of us, I at least, count THAT word as a four letter word and wish you'd stop using 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: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:32 AM Subject: Re: To UHJ #7 (Juan Cole: The "Science" of history) Devin Ganger wrote in message <34988f7a.0@satellite.premier1.net>... > Remember only that in news.groups, >Frederick Glaysher (FG@hotmail.com) said: > >: Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > > > >Frederick, > >*Please* stop doing this. > >Complaining in news.groups for perceived slights that your religious >authorities may or may not correct is *not* an appropriate use of this >newsgroup! Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately, given the history of over a year trying to get this proposal passed, there's little choice now but to appeal to the Bahai religious authorites in the hope that they'll intervene.... > >As you persist in doing this, you erode support for your proposals by >revealing yourself to be unreasonable and unwilling to play by >established rules. Actually, if one has been closely following the discussion and events, I would think the reverse should be evident. That is, the only reasonable thing now to do is to turn to the Bahai institutions to make the right decision to head off another massive NO vote.... I have, I believe, very much been playing by the rules.... In my opinion, it's the other side that has consistently broken them: 157: 691. I'm truly sorry that news.groups is the forum where this has to be played out.... Ask yourself, if the Bahai Faith is nothing but an oppressive cult, full of glowing words of love and peace, none of which is true on the "inside," would you prefer there to be at last at least one place on Usenet where he or she might go to hear an honest, non-censored opinion about it? Or would you prefer the cult leaders to control all information that reaches your children? In addition to an appeal to the UHJ, I intend such messages show that I am not alone in perceiving very fundamentalist strains within the Bahai Faith, often manifesting themselves in censorship and so on.... I do not see such posts as irrelevant to the discussion and vote on talk.religion.bahai. Quite germane, really.... Nothing personal intended.... > >-- >Devin L. Ganger >Chief Systems Administrator >Premier1 Internet Services 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 18, 1997 9:14 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Graham Sorenson wrote in message <8jQNuDAVdPm0EwNz@fragrant.demon.co.uk>... >In article <678jsn$7n7@news2.zippo.com>, Frederick Glaysher > writes >> >>Barney Kennedy, LMFT, LMHC wrote in message >><677lj8$l3n$1@kali.ziplink.net>... >>>I see no reason for this addtional news.group to exist beyond giving >>>dissidents and other malcontents another forum to express their (not >>>necessarily wanted or asked for) opinions. >> >>Can you expand on your reasons? On what basis would you justify >>suppressing a news group that has had nearly 5000 messages >>posted to alt.religion.bahai and clearly demonstrating immense >>interest in an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith? >> >> > >Oh Dear.. Once again, and again. The vast majority of postings on ARB >are to do with the discussion on TRB, are cross postings, or off topic. This is not true at all. While there are a lot of posts that are crossposts and some that are off topic, by no means are all 5000 either one. The maitreya ones are the worst off topic, I'll grant. In early October, someone figured out, based on Richard Detweiler's analysis, that there were over 1,200 different threads and 513 different individuals posting to arb. Even shaving off a full 1000 at the time still left, if I recall correctly, over 2600 messages then that were valid postings. Let me add discussing trb on arb does not invalidate a posting whatsoever. To characterize all of the postings as only doing so is not credible. Search dejanews for yourself.... > >When will you learn to be objective about this subject and stop pushing >"facts" that have no real relationship to the newsgroup. Your "facts" are incorrect. Go back to early October and read Detweiler's analysis. It proves the overwhelming interest that exists for an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith. > >The proofs of topics posted to ARB have already been posted. Yes! Over 1,200 different threads up to the time before the 1st RFD was posted on Oct. 20th! The evidence is quite against your assertions here.... > >-- >Cre@tions Design >https://www.acemake.com/creations >https://www.acemake.com >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk >etc 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 18, 1997 9:04 AM Subject: Pointer: 3rd RFD talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion 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: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:02 AM To: Dean Edwards Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Thanks! Will resend it right away! 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: Dean Edwards To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 5:23 PM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) >Frederick, > >I know from personal experience that it takes months to run through the >process of passing a new newsgroup. I must have forgotten approving the >RFD for posting to this newsgroup. > >If the moderators for the newgroups newsgroup approve of pointers >then it is fine with me. So, send in another pointer and I shall see >that it is posted. > >Dean Edwards >moderator for soc.religion.gnosis > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:01 AM Subject: To UHJ #8 (Juan Cole: mutual tolerance) Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: I believe this message speaks well to the lack of tolerance by some Bahais during the now much too long discussion period for talk.religion.bahai and the resulting abuse of the Usenet voting system.... 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: "If men could only learn the lesson of mutual tolerance, understanding, and brotherly love, the unity of the world would soon be an established fact. Bahá'u'lláh spent His life teaching this lesson of Love and Unity. Let us then put away from us all prejudice and intolerance . . ." `Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks Would not mutual tolerance and brotherly love require that we all listen respectfully to one another, without charging anyone with being a covenant breaker simply because he or she seems to be saying new things? Recognizing that there are conservative and liberal Baha'is, is it really "mutual tolerance," "brotherly love" and "unity" for conservative Baha'is to employ their control of the central institutions to declare the liberals "not Baha'is" or guilty of "making statements contrary to the covenant?" Isn't it a form of prejudice and intolerance for conservative Baha'is to wax suspicious of Baha'i academics, to mutter about "intellectual pride" (while ignoring the greater problem of institutional pride), and to attempt to silence them? Is this "tolerance"? Or is it intolerance? Is this to be free of "prejudice" or is it anti-intellectual bigotry? Notice that Baha'u'llah "spent His life" teaching this "lesson of Love and Unity." What love have Baha'i liberals found at the hands of the conservatives? Have they been unified with them or excluded from their midst? How can Baha'is hope to bring Christians and Muslims together if they cannot even bring devoted Baha'is of various opinions together? Is unity really achieved through intimidation, threats, sanctions, and expulsion? What sort of fascist unity is that? Does this sound like "brotherly love" to any of you? cheers Juan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 8:54 AM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: What exactly do you want the House of Justice to do? Would it be all right to post this message to bahai-st? If so, could you post it? -----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: 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: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 1:26 PM To: JoySafari Subject: Re: democratic (ha!) Please don't email me directly. 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: JoySafari To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM ; talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:42 AM Subject: Re: democratic (ha!) >For some 15 years as a Christian, I considered myself a Fundamentalist - >proudly. For these 9 years as a Baha'i, I considered myself a Fundamentalist >- proudly. That's 24 years altogether. It is true, that now that I am on >this list, I have seen new definitions of this word "Fundamentalist"... and am >starting to question my pride. :) > >And yes, I certainly think of myself as educated, thinking and progressive. >So too, there may be others like me. > >"With adventurous fundamentals," >Tammy Faye > >In a message dated 97-12-16 13:10:41 EST, FG@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > ><< > 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: 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: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 1:15 PM To: Chris Manvell Cc: Ron House Subject: Fw: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) 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: FG To: Ron House ; Chris Manvell Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 8:51 AM Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) >Chris wrote in message ... >>In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher >> wrote to Afshin Afrashteh: >>>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 Bahai Faith... >> >>To Fred: >> >>Dear Fred, >> >>I appreciate the reasons why you wish to have more proponents but I fail >>to understand the logic of inviting an opponent of the Faith to be a >>proponent and feel that it would be totally counter-productive. Please >>bear in mind that our one goal at the present time is to get TRB on line >>(I am sure that Afshin would agree with that). Anything that can cause >>people to vote NO should be avoided -- I am sure we have anough YES >>votes to get the group -- as it is the NO votes that can kill TRB in the >>end. Already I have had three people write saying that they are >>seriously considering withdrawing their support for TRB. Previously I >>have managed to persuade them to stay positive but, this time round, I >>do not have the time, not the energy, to write lots of posts defending >>TRB, much as I would like to. It is the 'floating voters' who will make >>or break the interest poll for TRB and it is the floating voters that >>are beginning to show their concerns. > >The free speech and conscience that Abdu'l-Baha guaranteed >was part of the Bahai revelation surely must extend to Muslims >as well as Bahais, Christians, people uninterested in religion, >and so, or it means nothing whatsoever.... I believe you, Roger >Reini, and I were all surprised this past summer at how much >productive dialogue went on between Bahais and Muslims.... > >They will have every right to post to trb when it's passed, and >that fact ought to be recognized and protected, up front, here >at the beginning. If Bahais wish to oppose and suppress the >right of Muslims to express themselves in all good will and >the sincerity of their own consciences, then fine.... Let them >do it and make it apparent to others and the world what >an unmitigated SHAM the Bahai Teachings are for many >Bahais.... > >That's how I see it.... The problem lies with the intolerance >of Bahais, many of whom wish to control and muzzle Muslims, >as well as other Bahais. > >Afshin has said lots of things I don't believe or like, but I >defend his right to say them and to be a coproponent, if he >wishes.... > >Talk.religion.bahai should be an open forum for everyone, >of whatever opinion or view or religion. I believe it would >basically be an act of interreligious terrorism for Bahais >to vote NO against it whether there's a Muslim coproponent >or not. If he does choose to represent a large bloc of opinion >by being a coproponent, that in itself would not constitute a >legitimate reason for voting NO. Such a NO vote would be >tantamount to throwing a bomb into a crowded market or >bus.... > >Chris, I don't know what the "technical" grounds you refer >to below could possibly be.... You have a veto in all things, >and you can use it on this one too if you feel strongly about >it.... But I see nothing wrong or contrary to Usenet >guidelines in Afshin being a coproponent of >talk.religion.bahai. If Bahais can't support freedom and >religious conscience, let the Muslims.... Despite the >overemphasis of the media on the negative, many of them >do.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > >> >>With best wishes, >> >>Chris. >> >>======================================================================= >> >>To Afshin: >> >>Dear Nokhodchi, >> >>I think you must realise that to have an opponent of the Baha'i Faith as >>a proponent for a Baha'i newsgroup, while showing an incredible open- >>mindedness, will almost certainly turn many members of the Baha'i >>community against TRB. In your opposition to the Faith you are, of >>course, following the dictates of your own conscience and doing what you >>feel is right, and I, for one, would not in any way try to prevent that. >>As an individual I have no cause for complaint against you and I find >>your posts, while often irritating, generally courteous and certainly >>thought provoking. Thus my opposing the suggestion that you become >>proponent for TRB is purely on technical grounds and does not in any way >>reflect against you as an individual. >> >>With Baha'i love, >> >>Chris. >> >>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 17, 1997 10:08 AM 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: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:51 AM Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) Chris wrote in message ... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote to Afshin Afrashteh: >>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 Bahai Faith... > >To Fred: > >Dear Fred, > >I appreciate the reasons why you wish to have more proponents but I fail >to understand the logic of inviting an opponent of the Faith to be a >proponent and feel that it would be totally counter-productive. Please >bear in mind that our one goal at the present time is to get TRB on line >(I am sure that Afshin would agree with that). Anything that can cause >people to vote NO should be avoided -- I am sure we have anough YES >votes to get the group -- as it is the NO votes that can kill TRB in the >end. Already I have had three people write saying that they are >seriously considering withdrawing their support for TRB. Previously I >have managed to persuade them to stay positive but, this time round, I >do not have the time, not the energy, to write lots of posts defending >TRB, much as I would like to. It is the 'floating voters' who will make >or break the interest poll for TRB and it is the floating voters that >are beginning to show their concerns. The free speech and conscience that Abdu'l-Baha guaranteed was part of the Bahai revelation surely must extend to Muslims as well as Bahais, Christians, people uninterested in religion, and so, or it means nothing whatsoever.... I believe you, Roger Reini, and I were all surprised this past summer at how much productive dialogue went on between Bahais and Muslims.... They will have every right to post to trb when it's passed, and that fact ought to be recognized and protected, up front, here at the beginning. If Bahais wish to oppose and suppress the right of Muslims to express themselves in all good will and the sincerity of their own consciences, then fine.... Let them do it and make it apparent to others and the world what an unmitigated SHAM the Bahai Teachings are for many Bahais.... That's how I see it.... The problem lies with the intolerance of Bahais, many of whom wish to control and muzzle Muslims, as well as other Bahais. Afshin has said lots of things I don't believe or like, but I defend his right to say them and to be a coproponent, if he wishes.... Talk.religion.bahai should be an open forum for everyone, of whatever opinion or view or religion. I believe it would basically be an act of interreligious terrorism for Bahais to vote NO against it whether there's a Muslim coproponent or not. If he does choose to represent a large bloc of opinion by being a coproponent, that in itself would not constitute a legitimate reason for voting NO. Such a NO vote would be tantamount to throwing a bomb into a crowded market or bus.... Chris, I don't know what the "technical" grounds you refer to below could possibly be.... You have a veto in all things, and you can use it on this one too if you feel strongly about it.... But I see nothing wrong or contrary to Usenet guidelines in Afshin being a coproponent of talk.religion.bahai. If Bahais can't support freedom and religious conscience, let the Muslims.... Despite the overemphasis of the media on the negative, many of them do.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at > >With best wishes, > >Chris. > >======================================================================= > >To Afshin: > >Dear Nokhodchi, > >I think you must realise that to have an opponent of the Baha'i Faith as >a proponent for a Baha'i newsgroup, while showing an incredible open- >mindedness, will almost certainly turn many members of the Baha'i >community against TRB. In your opposition to the Faith you are, of >course, following the dictates of your own conscience and doing what you >feel is right, and I, for one, would not in any way try to prevent that. >As an individual I have no cause for complaint against you and I find >your posts, while often irritating, generally courteous and certainly >thought provoking. Thus my opposing the suggestion that you become >proponent for TRB is purely on technical grounds and does not in any way >reflect against you as an individual. > >With Baha'i love, > >Chris. > >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 17, 1997 9:28 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Barney Kennedy, LMFT, LMHC wrote in message <677lj8$l3n$1@kali.ziplink.net>... >I see no reason for this addtional news.group to exist beyond giving >dissidents and other malcontents another forum to express their (not >necessarily wanted or asked for) opinions. Permit me to add, your characterization of anyone interested in talk.religion.bahai as "malcontents" would appear perhaps highly biased in the estimation of many.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:25 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Barney Kennedy, LMFT, LMHC wrote in message <677lj8$l3n$1@kali.ziplink.net>... >I see no reason for this addtional news.group to exist beyond giving >dissidents and other malcontents another forum to express their (not >necessarily wanted or asked for) opinions. Can you expand on your reasons? On what basis would you justify suppressing a news group that has had nearly 5000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai and clearly demonstrating immense interest in an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith? 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, December 17, 1997 9:22 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote in message <0i+zsaAZYsl0EwFh@baha.demon.co.uk>... >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher >>>>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 is a very trivial comment, > >As I read it, Russell is referring to his post here. Now he has pointed >it out, I agree that the sentence in the RFD is a bit ambiguous. It can >be read as saying (as was the intention) that -- Placing the subordinate clause at the front of the sentence clarifies its meaning nicely.... > >The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >Baha'i Faith. In this it is similar to other newsgroups devoted to >discussing a particular religion. > >as well as (which was NOT the intention) -- > >The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >Baha'i Faith, whereas other religious groups are official organs devoted >to discussing a particular religion. > >Such is the English language that phrase can be implied and lead to such >ambiguities, albeit this one is somewhat obscure. Kathy had no problem with it. I'd go with that version, with the clause at the beginning, and would then be willing to drop the whipping post disclaimer.... > >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, 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 12:56 PM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <349687CD.C146D451@sprintmail.com>... >Russell Steinthal wrote: >> >> >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 is a very trivial comment, but this sentence (at least to me) >> implies that other groups discussing religions *are* official organs >> of their respective religions, which isn't true (at least not for the >> vast majority of *.religion groups) That's not a big enough problem to >> warrant issuing another RFD for (this proposal has taken long enough >> already, IMHO), but if there happens to be another one for other >> reasons, it might be a good idea to clarify the language. (You could >> probably even make a change that trivial in the CFV, if you wanted >> to...) > >I believe I'm the perpetrator of the sentence in question :). Would it >be more clear to reverse the order of the clauses? That would give us: > >"As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular >religion, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of >the Baha'i faith." > >I'd still prefer that Sharon Bouchard's last version be used, which is: > >"This group is for open discussion of issues relating to the Baha'i >Faith. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the >teachings of the Baha'i Faith." I believe her version "takes sides," if you will.... Since I'm willing to compromise, I'd agree to either version of yours above. The last one with the subordinate clause first does read better. >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (at 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, December 16, 1997 12:48 PM To: Dean Edwards Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) I'm not sure I understand you. Soc.religion.gnosis appears on the RFD for talk.religion.bahai. Pointers to newsgroups are permissible under Usenet guidelines. I'm not trying to slip anything past you or anyone else. Just a brief pointer to news.groups, where the discussion is taking place. Past moderators of soc.religion.gnosis, I believe, have allowed pointers. Have you changed your policy or am I misunderstanding you? 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: Dean Edwards To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 11:20 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) >FG@hotmail.com: > >Greetings, > >Since this is an illegal notice, it will not be posted. Please be advised, >that if you are a part of the official group hoping to create this newsgroup, >notices such as this may invalidate a vote in favor of the group. Please take >a look at the rules. > >Dean Edwards >a moderator for soc.religion.gnosis and soc.religion.shamanism > >Forwarded message: >> From daemon@alumnae.caltech.edu Mon Dec 15 07:50:41 1997 >> To: srg@alumni.caltech.edu >> Path: super.zippo.com!newsp.zippo.com!news1 >> From: "Frederick Glaysher" >> Newsgroups: soc.religion.gnosis >> Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >> Followup-To: news.groups >> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:44:54 -0500 >> Organization: Zippo News Service [https://www.zippo.com] >> Lines: 11 >> Message-ID: <673j9j$s1f@news1.zippo.com> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.123 >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >> >> The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to >> news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel >> free to join the discussion 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: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 8:46 AM Subject: Re: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) TK wrote in message <6745bf$cv1@drn.zippo.com>... >In article <6738f9$o0v@news2.zippo.com>, "Frederick says... >> >>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 Bahai Faith... >> > >Fred, why don't you consult with your fellow co-proponents first about things >like this? For one, it really doesn't seem necessary to add more co-proponents, >and two, if any one of the the other co-proponents disagrees with adding someone >else, the offer you made above has no real weight to it, as each of you has veto >power. Or am I wrong in this assumption? Ron House is on vacation and stated in email that he'd go along with anything Chris and I decided. I have emailed Chris on this idea. I haven't heard back from him yet. It seems all right to open it for general discussion. Muslims contributed a whole lot during the summer on alt.religion.bahai, and many people said they found the conversation interesting and even enlightening at times.... What's your opinion? > >TK 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, December 16, 1997 8:41 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Russell Steinthal wrote in message <674rdu$cde$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>... >In article <882176211.27908@isc.org>, >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >[snip] > >>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 is a very trivial comment, but this sentence (at least to me) >implies that other groups discussing religions *are* official organs >of their respective religions, which isn't true (at least not for the >vast majority of *.religion groups) That's not a big enough problem to >warrant issuing another RFD for (this proposal has taken long enough >already, IMHO), but if there happens to be another one for other >reasons, it might be a good idea to clarify the language. (You could >probably even make a change that trivial in the CFV, if you wanted >to...) I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this is a very trivial comment that doesn't really belong in a RFD at all.... However, this is something that a lot of Bahais apparently have felt a lot of passion about, and I was willing to compromise and meet them half way.... Many Bahais think soc.religion.bahai is THE official newsgroup, as do the moderators there though they routinely say otherwise.... It's precisely this item and a few others that have dragged out this proposal all fall and now into 1998.... How would you suggest the language be clarified? >-- >Russell Steinthal > > 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, December 15, 1997 3:57 PM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: copy of posted rfd David Lawrence left out h-bahai for some reason. I forwarded it to them. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub 1.bbnplanet.c om!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.Stanford.EDU!news.isc. org!bounce -back From: "Frederick Glaysher" Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,so c.culture.iranian,s oc.culture.israel Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Followup-To: news.groups Message-ID: <882176211.27908@isc.org> Approved: newgroups-request@isc.org Archive-Name: talk.religion.bahai Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT Lines: 178 Xref: szdc news.announce.newgroups:2669 news.groups:113404 alt.religion.bahai:4056 talk.religion.misc:152544 soc.culture.iranian:64954 soc.culture.israel:91037 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 1:27 PM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: Fw: Co-proponent? What do you two say? I'm not entirely sure, but I think the more the merrier. It would demonstrate all the more that trb is open to everyone, and, if they vote No, they do it in order to censor.... 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: Afshin Afrashteh To: nokhodchi@hotmail.com ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, December 15, 1997 12:17 PM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 1:25 PM Subject: All pointers posted for 3rd RFD talk.religion.bahai All pointers to news groups and lists have been posted. -- 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, December 15, 1997 11:51 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion 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, December 15, 1997 11:47 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to join the discussion 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, December 15, 1997 11:44 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to join the discussion 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, December 15, 1997 11:43 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to join the discussion 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, December 15, 1997 11:41 AM Subject: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and elsewhere. Please feel free to join the discussion 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, December 15, 1997 8:55 AM Subject: Re: Test Message Dejanews shows 4,663 messages this morning.... Doesn't seem purged to me.... Is that what you're talking about? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at Roger Reini wrote in message <34928EC7.7C44F012@wwnet.net>... >O SON OF BEING! > >Love Me that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no >wise reach thee. Know this, O servant! > >--from the Hidden Words > >----------------- > >Posted as a test from news.zippo.com -- their database seems to have >been purged. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 8:40 AM Subject: co-proponent? (Re: Former bahais) nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in message <881855807.874643470@dejanews.com>... >Yes, ofcourse I support it. Soc.religion.bahai moderators have proven >themselves not just to muslims but also to bahais as intolerant censors >enforcing a particular dogmatic version of the bahai faith. What are >bahais afraid of? It is in the self interest of the bahai faith to have >an unmoderated forum. Only then will the artciles posted be truly >representative. Bahais will only confirm to others that their religion is >not "modern" and as tolerant as they would like others to believe. >Soc.religion.bahai has turned into a web-site where the owner moderators >post only what they like and reject articles on the flimsiest of excuses. >I hope bahais can demonstrate to the cybercommunity that the intolerance >of the moderators does not represent their own beliefs. I personally >don't have much hope. I hope I am wrong. Bahais talk about "independent >investigation of truth" but by enforcing a certain dogmatic version and >being intolerant of differences the moderators and supporters of that >newsgroup are contradicting that doctrine. I guess come time for the >voting we shall see how grown up and mature the bahai community really is >and their level of self confidence. If you are secure about the validity >of your faiths then you should have no problem with an unmoderated forum. >After all, truth is clear from error right ? :)) 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 Bahai Faith... > >Peace, > >Afshin Afrashteh >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca 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, December 15, 1997 8:30 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: 3rd RFD Posted: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD has been posted by David Lawrence to news.announce.newgroups. Chris, do you want to update the one on your website? -- 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, December 15, 1997 8:30 AM Subject: 3rd RFD Posted: talk.religion.bahai The 3rd RFD has been posted by David Lawrence to news.announce.newgroups. Chris, do you want to update the one on your website? -- 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, December 15, 1997 8:29 AM To: nokhodchi@hotmail.com Subject: Co-proponent? 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 8:19 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: others You wrote: >I can't tell you how many ex-Baha'is I have met in cyberspace who >complain bitterly about being regimented and shepherded. Can you do anything to get more of them on news.groups? Too often I'm the lone voice over there.... 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, December 15, 1997 8:13 AM To: h-bahai Subject: Fw: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Please post this 3rd RFD if you would. It should have been sent to you by David Lawrence, as he did with the first two, but for some reason he missed you this time. Thanks. 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: FG Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,so c.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel To: Talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, December 15, 1997 3:57 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 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 1997 9:37 AM Subject: 3rd RFD sent to David Lawrence The 3rd is in. When I receive a confirmation from David Lawrence that it has been posted, I'll do all of the crossposts and pointers. There may be a need for a 4th RFD.... Consultation on this one, though initially posted on November 5th, seemed to drag for some reason until the holiday break deadline has begun to loom.... -- 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, December 14, 1997 9:11 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34887D9E.A0B3C0BE@ford.com>... >I suggest you replace this: >> >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. > >With this: > 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. On second thought, maybe your text is better, broader and more encompassing.... We'll use it in the 3rd RFD and can change back in the 4th RFD if everyone prefers.... 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, December 14, 1997 8:42 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Re Rights and Freedom Question Be sure to post this to news.groups! Where's Elizabeth Holden? There will have to be a 4th RFD in Janauary. She could be added then if she wants. It's necessary though for her to participate in the discussion.... 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: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan1@umich.edu ; quanta@mindspring.com ; jrcole@umich.edu Date: Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:15 AM Subject: Re Rights and Freedom Question >Greetings, Quanta. > If you are well, it is well. > The distinction is this, that the US Supreme Court has not >ruled that only those political views which are held by Right >Wing Republicans may be held by Americans. They have not had >agents ruled to have status higher than State Legislatures phone >up prominent American professors late at night to arrange meetings >concerning the doctrinal purity of the views these professors have >posted on e-mail lists. > In Canada some people are quite upset that a man found by >police with the blood of a person brutally murdered on his clothes >is likely to go free as the police entered the murderer's trailer >without obtaining a warrant. So, there are reasonable points to be >made on both sides of that issue, and it is the sensational cases >which draw attention one way or another. > And, inasmuch as my position was always to work openly and >democratically for principled cause I did not comply with the >suggestions by members of this list, by my Auxiliary Board Member >and by the Universal House of Justice that one holding the views >of a Democrat and incapable of keeping silent should resign his >US citizenship. > And the Republican dominated government, in accord with its >quite pragmatic and Machievellian political agenda of fostering >its own re-election by eliminating outspoken Democrats, without >any written notice had my state legislature notify me that I was >assessed by the Federal Government as not meeting the qualifications >of US citizenship. If one reads the response provided to my wife >one sees this justified on the grounds of my being unconvinced of >the Republican platform and unwilling to keep my Democratic views >to myself. > Of course, were any other Democrat to resign US citizenship >in protest of anything the Republican dominated government is >doing this only furthers the goal of Republicans to drive away >Democrats and rule indefinitely. > So, on the contrary stick with it and vote the bums out. > Also, the sign of a healthy society is that a leader and a >government can be criticized publically. The places where leaders >have skin too thin to tolerate criticism are those whose leaders' >inflated egos (and no ego is more inflated than that holding that >the Government is Deity itself) need those balloons pricked and >human rights restored. > I hope this is clear. > Fare very Well, > Michael > >From: "Quanta Dawn-Light" >To: talisman@umich.edu, irfan1@umich.edu, jrcole@umich.edu >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:12:12 +0000 >Subject: rights and freedoms question... >Reply-to: quanta@mindspring.com > >Dear Juan and all, > >In response to your concerns regarding Baha'i Administration at all >levels I have the following question. > >As we Americans cherish our rights and freedoms, what do you think >about the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in cases >dealing with police search of citizens without proper warrants? >Also, many cases which the public considers as gradual curtailment of >our civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution, by the Supreme >Court. Now, should we say that the members of the Supreme Court are >corrupt and out of touch with the public? Should we or anyone then >withdraw their citizenship in protest of the court's decisions and >call them all kinds of names because we do not agree with them? Where >does the buck stop here? I need help to understand, if I am way off >here! I don't pretend to understand complex issues. I want to know. > >lovingly yours, >quanta > > > > > >-- >"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:17 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: One More Last Call: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft I'll wait until Sunday to post the RFD so everyone has a chance to suggest a way of balancing my concerns expressed in the "whipping post" disclaimer. Suggest better phrasing, and I'll use it.... I don't believe it's fair to ask the passage or idea to be deleted.... All I'm asking for is a compromise. Chris Manvell wrote: >Comment: I can understand Fred's point that just because someone posts a >diatribe, they should not then be hounded to hell and back for it. A >single polite rebuke would be appropriate. I know that this disclaimer >is not in the SRB charter but that is not relevant to this discussion as >times have moved on and it is not SRB that we are voted for. I fell very >strongly that the use of colloquial and emotive wording is not de rigeur >and can only put people off. Many people, though, have been hounded to hell and back. Compare Juan Cole, for instance, recently stating "they drove me out of the faith I loved." SRB is entirely relevant here, I believe. Can you suggest another way to balance the passage then? No one else has, to my satisfaction, come up with better words to do so. I'll hold off posting the RFD until Sunday morning in hope of receiving an acceptable suggestion. Otherwise, then, I'll have to use the whipping post phrase you originated since it's the only one I can think of that fits the circumstances. Open to 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: Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:17 AM Subject: One More Last Call: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft I'll wait until Sunday to post the RFD so everyone has a chance to suggest a way of balancing my concerns expressed in the "whipping post" disclaimer. Suggest better phrasing, and I'll use it.... I don't believe it's fair to ask the passage or idea to be deleted.... All I'm asking for is a compromise. Chris Manvell wrote: >Comment: I can understand Fred's point that just because someone posts a >diatribe, they should not then be hounded to hell and back for it. A >single polite rebuke would be appropriate. I know that this disclaimer >is not in the SRB charter but that is not relevant to this discussion as >times have moved on and it is not SRB that we are voted for. I fell very >strongly that the use of colloquial and emotive wording is not de rigeur >and can only put people off. Many people, though, have been hounded to hell and back. Compare Juan Cole, for instance, recently stating "they drove me out of the faith I loved." SRB is entirely relevant here, I believe. Can you suggest another way to balance the passage then? No one else has, to my satisfaction, come up with better words to do so. I'll hold off posting the RFD until Sunday morning in hope of receiving an acceptable suggestion. Otherwise, then, I'll have to use the whipping post phrase you originated since it's the only one I can think of that fits the circumstances. Open to 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: Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:03 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Chris wrote in message ... >I have gone through the suggested RFD and feel that it is beginning to >become all things for all men, which is usually not a good thing. My >feeling is that it has lost its way to a certain extent and is getting >too verbose. My understanding is that the important part, that which >will go down for posterity, is the Charter, the Rationale being the >explanation as to why the group is required, and the procedure being >just that -- a work instruction on how it is to be done. Thus I humble >offer a re-worked copy of Issue 3, Draft 2. The original posted by Fred >is identified with ">" at the start of each line. My comments are >identified by the word "Comment" and my suggested changes by amendment >marks "|". > >> 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, indicating an active interest in the formation of >|the group. In the event, the formation of the group was defeated but an >|alternative, alt.religion.bahai was created to partially fill the gap. I feel all this should just be left alone. What did we spend months discussing and writing it for otherwise? > >Comment: New paragraph helps separate the discussion RE trb and postings >TO arb. > >|From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, nearly 2,900 messages were >|posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of >|view on the Baha'i Faith, an average of some 16 to 17 messages per day >|over a period of some 6 months. > >Comment: This simplifies the text, removes the necessity for references >to DejaNews at this point and still conveys the general gist of the >message. Ditto. I'll add your paragraph break. > >|These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for >|talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time >|periods. It should be noted 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 which would be expected to lead >|to even higher rates of posting. > >Comment: Again, I feel that this simplifies the text without losing the >meaning of it. I just don't see any value in reworking any of this and think it's best to leave it alone and not bother with it since it's really irrelevant to anything of significance. > >|The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, >|rather than compete with, the existing moderated group >|soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to >|alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate, especially as many >|of those who voted YES to the first proposal are unable to access >|alt.religion.bahai, as their ISPs do not carry the alt.* hierarchy. >|It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will continue to evolve 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, where >|appropriate, Baha'i standards of conduct. Readers should not start or >|prolong flamewars, nor make personal attacks on individuals in, or >|outwith, the group, but should focus instead on articles and threads >|written in more moderate terms. > >Comment: I feel that this gets rid of the idea that ALL posters, >especially non-Baha'is have to stick to Baha'i standards, while not >letting Baha'is "off the hook". It was noted that soem people did not >know the expression "whipping post" so this has been dropped. i also >feel that is is somewhat emotive. In practice, netiquette actually >reflects Baha'i standards but it is worth underlining the satndards of >behaviour on the group. I'll use the Webster's quote to help them. I prefer the original to your revision. > >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. >|Readers are welcome to post articles that have been returned unposted >|by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the >|charter above. >> >|The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >|Baha'i faith, nor is it endorsed in any way by any institution of the >|Faith. All opinions expressed on the group are those of the individuals >|posting to it. > >Comment: I can understand Fred's point that just because someone posts a >diatribe, they should not then be hounded to hell and back for it. A >single polite rebuke would be appropriate. I know that this disclaimer >is not in the SRB charter but that is not relevant to this discussion as >times have moved on and it is not SRB that we are voted for. I fell very >strongly that the use of colloquial and emotive wording is not de rigeur >and can only put people off. Many people, though, have been hounded to hell and back. Compare Juan Cole, for instance, recently stating "they drove me out of the faith I loved." SRB is entirely relevant here, I believe. Can you suggest another way to balance the passage then? No one else has, to my satisfaction, come up with better words to do so. I'll hold off posting the RFD until Sunday morning in hope of receiving an acceptable suggestion. Otherwise, then, I'll have to use the whipping post phrase you originated since it's the only one I can think of that fits the circumstances. See my response in this thread to Kathy Pascoe for further comments on revision. > >>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. >> >|Those wishing to participate in the vote on the formation of >|talk.religion.bahai are asked to bear in mind the following instructive >|passage from Russ Allbery. > >Comment: I feel that the coments about voting procedure are more >appropriate here than in the charter, which will continue to exist long >after the group has been formed. This may not be accepted by Lawrence >Tale but I see not reason for not trying -- unless he has already said >that it is not applicable. If it cannot go here, move it to Rationalle >(as suggested by Ginger). > >>"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< >> >>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: > >Comment: Method of subscribing to these Baha'i only groups removed as >not relevant to a public forum. > >>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 > >Comment: I have tried to make this RFD as neutral as possible whilst >still tryign to address peoples' concerns. I know time is short but I >feel that, as we have a few hours left before the RFD is posted that >comments could still be made as to its suitability or otherwise. My >main concern was to address those aspects of the draft RFD that could >lead to NO votes being cast againt the formation of the group -- which >is, after all, the central theme of this stage in its existance. > >With love to you all and apologies for being so late (and I am out most >of the day tomorrow rehearsing and performing in a Christmas Concert so >woll not participate any later than tomorrow morning). > >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 9:03 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Chris wrote in message ... >I have gone through the suggested RFD and feel that it is beginning to >become all things for all men, which is usually not a good thing. My >feeling is that it has lost its way to a certain extent and is getting >too verbose. My understanding is that the important part, that which >will go down for posterity, is the Charter, the Rationale being the >explanation as to why the group is required, and the procedure being >just that -- a work instruction on how it is to be done. Thus I humble >offer a re-worked copy of Issue 3, Draft 2. The original posted by Fred >is identified with ">" at the start of each line. My comments are >identified by the word "Comment" and my suggested changes by amendment >marks "|". > >> 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, indicating an active interest in the formation of >|the group. In the event, the formation of the group was defeated but an >|alternative, alt.religion.bahai was created to partially fill the gap. I feel all this should just be left alone. What did we spend months discussing and writing it for otherwise? > >Comment: New paragraph helps separate the discussion RE trb and postings >TO arb. > >|From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, nearly 2,900 messages were >|posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of >|view on the Baha'i Faith, an average of some 16 to 17 messages per day >|over a period of some 6 months. > >Comment: This simplifies the text, removes the necessity for references >to DejaNews at this point and still conveys the general gist of the >message. Ditto. I'll add your paragraph break. > >|These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for >|talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time >|periods. It should be noted 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 which would be expected to lead >|to even higher rates of posting. > >Comment: Again, I feel that this simplifies the text without losing the >meaning of it. I just don't see any value in reworking any of this and think it's best to leave it alone and not bother with it since it's really irrelevant to anything of significance. > >|The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, >|rather than compete with, the existing moderated group >|soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to >|alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate, especially as many >|of those who voted YES to the first proposal are unable to access >|alt.religion.bahai, as their ISPs do not carry the alt.* hierarchy. >|It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will continue to evolve 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, where >|appropriate, Baha'i standards of conduct. Readers should not start or >|prolong flamewars, nor make personal attacks on individuals in, or >|outwith, the group, but should focus instead on articles and threads >|written in more moderate terms. > >Comment: I feel that this gets rid of the idea that ALL posters, >especially non-Baha'is have to stick to Baha'i standards, while not >letting Baha'is "off the hook". It was noted that soem people did not >know the expression "whipping post" so this has been dropped. i also >feel that is is somewhat emotive. In practice, netiquette actually >reflects Baha'i standards but it is worth underlining the satndards of >behaviour on the group. I'll use the Webster's quote to help them. I prefer the original to your revision. > >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. >|Readers are welcome to post articles that have been returned unposted >|by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the >|charter above. >> >|The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >|Baha'i faith, nor is it endorsed in any way by any institution of the >|Faith. All opinions expressed on the group are those of the individuals >|posting to it. > >Comment: I can understand Fred's point that just because someone posts a >diatribe, they should not then be hounded to hell and back for it. A >single polite rebuke would be appropriate. I know that this disclaimer >is not in the SRB charter but that is not relevant to this discussion as >times have moved on and it is not SRB that we are voted for. I fell very >strongly that the use of colloquial and emotive wording is not de rigeur >and can only put people off. Many people, though, have been hounded to hell and back. Compare Juan Cole, for instance, recently stating "they drove me out of the faith I loved." SRB is entirely relevant here, I believe. Can you suggest another way to balance the passage then? No one else has, to my satisfaction, come up with better words to do so. I'll hold off posting the RFD until Sunday morning in hope of receiving an acceptable suggestion. Otherwise, then, I'll have to use the whipping post phrase you originated since it's the only one I can think of that fits the circumstances. See my response in this thread to Kathy Pascoe for further comments on revision. > >>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. >> >|Those wishing to participate in the vote on the formation of >|talk.religion.bahai are asked to bear in mind the following instructive >|passage from Russ Allbery. > >Comment: I feel that the coments about voting procedure are more >appropriate here than in the charter, which will continue to exist long >after the group has been formed. This may not be accepted by Lawrence >Tale but I see not reason for not trying -- unless he has already said >that it is not applicable. If it cannot go here, move it to Rationalle >(as suggested by Ginger). > >>"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< >> >>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: > >Comment: Method of subscribing to these Baha'i only groups removed as >not relevant to a public forum. > >>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 > >Comment: I have tried to make this RFD as neutral as possible whilst >still tryign to address peoples' concerns. I know time is short but I >feel that, as we have a few hours left before the RFD is posted that >comments could still be made as to its suitability or otherwise. My >main concern was to address those aspects of the draft RFD that could >lead to NO votes being cast againt the formation of the group -- which >is, after all, the central theme of this stage in its existance. > >With love to you all and apologies for being so late (and I am out most >of the day tomorrow rehearsing and performing in a Christmas Concert so >woll not participate any later than tomorrow morning). > >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 8:50 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3491BE73.557290AE@ford.com>... >Chris wrote: >> >> Thus I humble offer a re-worked copy of Issue 3, Draft 2. > >And I cheerfully review it. :) Thank you for doing this. I only have >a couple of comments. > >> |The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >> |Baha'i faith, nor is it endorsed in any way by any institution of the >> |Faith. All opinions expressed on the group are those of the >> |individuals posting to it. > >I think I like Sharon's wording better, but this is fine. I don't want one at all but I'll compromise and use Sharon's. We'll have to compromise too and use a balanced disclaimer and a quote from Webster's to define it. >> >> >PROCEDURE: >> > >> |Those wishing to participate in the vote on the formation of >> |talk.religion.bahai are asked to bear in mind the following >> |instructive passage from Russ Allbery. >> >> Comment: I feel that the coments about voting procedure are more >> appropriate here than in the charter, which will continue to exist >> long after the group has been formed. This may not be accepted by >> Lawrence Tale but I see not reason for not trying > >It's David Lawrence, actually; "tale" is his user name. > >> If it cannot go here, move it to Rationalle (as suggested by Ginger). > >The procedure is best, rationale is OK, but I really think a pointer >to the comment from the House on your website is better. Russ' comments >may well be seen as the trump card "you people better do the right >thing" attitude that I, among many others, are sick of hearing from >Fred (not that Russ worded it that way, but I think you know what I >mean). I could be wrong, of course, but in the interest of removing the >other emotionally charged wording, I respectfully suggest that you, Ron >and Fred think carefully about including this. Chris and I both have vetoed the pointer in the past as inappropriate use of the Writings or the UHJ. People will be free to repost it to trb as much as they like or whenever. Russ' passage will go in the procedure, agreed. It should help educate anyone who might have missed past discussion. > >> Comment: Method of subscribing to these Baha'i only groups removed as >> not relevant to a public forum. > >Makes sense, although there may be a Baha'i or two who could use that >information. There would be Bahais who wouldn't know how or where to subscribe and hence I believe they should remain since group formation rules require the subscription addresses of all lists. > >> Comment: I have tried to make this RFD as neutral as possible whilst >> still tryign to address peoples' concerns. I know time is short but I >> feel that, as we have a few hours left before the RFD is posted that >> comments could still be made as to its suitability or otherwise. My >> main concern was to address those aspects of the draft RFD that could >> lead to NO votes being cast againt the formation of the group -- which >> is, after all, the central theme of this stage in its existance. > >Again, thank you. I think there are several very productive suggestions >here. I think so too. Thanks. >> >> With love to you all and apologies for being so late (and I am out >> most of the day tomorrow rehearsing and performing in a Christmas >> Concert so woll not participate any later than tomorrow morning). > >Singing or playing an instrument? I miss performing in my old caroling >group. > >Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season. I'll try to post it today. I'll do all the pointers too when I receive confirmation from David Lawrence that it has been posted. >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) > .. a backup moderator of ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 8:50 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3491BE73.557290AE@ford.com>... >Chris wrote: >> >> Thus I humble offer a re-worked copy of Issue 3, Draft 2. > >And I cheerfully review it. :) Thank you for doing this. I only have >a couple of comments. > >> |The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >> |Baha'i faith, nor is it endorsed in any way by any institution of the >> |Faith. All opinions expressed on the group are those of the >> |individuals posting to it. > >I think I like Sharon's wording better, but this is fine. I don't want one at all but I'll compromise and use Sharon's. We'll have to compromise too and use a balanced disclaimer and a quote from Webster's to define it. >> >> >PROCEDURE: >> > >> |Those wishing to participate in the vote on the formation of >> |talk.religion.bahai are asked to bear in mind the following >> |instructive passage from Russ Allbery. >> >> Comment: I feel that the coments about voting procedure are more >> appropriate here than in the charter, which will continue to exist >> long after the group has been formed. This may not be accepted by >> Lawrence Tale but I see not reason for not trying > >It's David Lawrence, actually; "tale" is his user name. > >> If it cannot go here, move it to Rationalle (as suggested by Ginger). > >The procedure is best, rationale is OK, but I really think a pointer >to the comment from the House on your website is better. Russ' comments >may well be seen as the trump card "you people better do the right >thing" attitude that I, among many others, are sick of hearing from >Fred (not that Russ worded it that way, but I think you know what I >mean). I could be wrong, of course, but in the interest of removing the >other emotionally charged wording, I respectfully suggest that you, Ron >and Fred think carefully about including this. Chris and I both have vetoed the pointer in the past as inappropriate use of the Writings or the UHJ. People will be free to repost it to trb as much as they like or whenever. Russ' passage will go in the procedure, agreed. It should help educate anyone who might have missed past discussion. > >> Comment: Method of subscribing to these Baha'i only groups removed as >> not relevant to a public forum. > >Makes sense, although there may be a Baha'i or two who could use that >information. There would be Bahais who wouldn't know how or where to subscribe and hence I believe they should remain since group formation rules require the subscription addresses of all lists. > >> Comment: I have tried to make this RFD as neutral as possible whilst >> still tryign to address peoples' concerns. I know time is short but I >> feel that, as we have a few hours left before the RFD is posted that >> comments could still be made as to its suitability or otherwise. My >> main concern was to address those aspects of the draft RFD that could >> lead to NO votes being cast againt the formation of the group -- which >> is, after all, the central theme of this stage in its existance. > >Again, thank you. I think there are several very productive suggestions >here. I think so too. Thanks. >> >> With love to you all and apologies for being so late (and I am out >> most of the day tomorrow rehearsing and performing in a Christmas >> Concert so woll not participate any later than tomorrow morning). > >Singing or playing an instrument? I miss performing in my old caroling >group. > >Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season. I'll try to post it today. I'll do all the pointers too when I receive confirmation from David Lawrence that it has been posted. >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) > .. a backup moderator of ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 8:28 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Ginger Glaser wrote in message <34904600.660D@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Take a deep breath and calm down. You are starting to sound paranoid, >and I have had enough of paranoid from being inthe RGBM discussion. Too much has happened to brush my concerns off as paranoia.... I refer to Dr. Juan Cole's reposts ("To UHJ," now dejanews) if you or anyone else imagines I am the only person concerned about these things.... Now, >I understand WHY you are reacting this way, but frankly you are creating >an issue that just isn't there. Stating the obvious, in this case, buys >you a few votes, or at least a few non-NOs. It doesn't matter whether >another group has it, because NO Big 8 group is an official mouthpiece >of a religion, company or whatever. Relax, the clause WON'T hurt you. >And think about it, even if SRB did claim to be the "official" group >(which to my knowledge they aren't) wouldn't that give you all the MORE >reason to have TRB? There are MANY people on Usenet who will not >subscribe to groups with "filtered" views, and the presence of one would >make an open group which specifically stated it was NOT official even >more popular. Either way you win. So relax, forget that some who don't >like you support the clause, and go on making constructive changes. I'm considering all of the above. In the meantime, what's wrong with balancing the passage from the RFD. I'm willing to compromise. For months, I wasn't. I'm only asking the opposition to meet me half way.... "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. (Webster's Third New International: 'A post formerly usually in public to which offenders are tied to be legally whipped.')" Or we might use whipping boy: "scapegoat." > >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, December 12, 1997 8:08 AM Subject: 4593 documents As of today, 4593 documents have been posted to alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. -- 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 12, 1997 7:57 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: 3rd Rfd? 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 7:14 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Roger Reini wrote in message <348FF5A9.6F9B@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <348F012F.3F94E26A@ford.com>... >> >> Sharon Bouchard wrote: >> >> "This group is for open discussion of issues relating to the Baha'i >> >> Faith. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the >> >> teachings of the Baha'i Faith." >> > >> >I think that's the best version I've seen. >> >> Why should such a disclaimer appear in trb's RFD, but not in >> soc.religion.bahai's? Doesn't that appear peculiar? Surely, more >> than coincidence.... Why permit and support such disclaimer when >> it serves no legitimate Usenet purpose? > >When s.r.b was created, the need for such a disclaimer was probably not >seen. Now, with the existence of alt.religion.bahai and the possible >existence of talk.religion.bahai, it might not be a bad idea to add such >a statement to the s.r.b charter. Perhaps you could suggest it to the >group moderators. You've got to be kidding.... Let them add it and then come back to trb. I don't know how the other two proponents feel, but I'll allow the disclaimer only with the compromise whipping post disclaimer.... > >FYI, in the earlier days of s.r.b, I remember that several messages >contained explicit statements that they represented only the opinions of >the authors, based on their understandings of the Baha'i teachings. >Such statements are not as common nowadays, but it is still true. Obvious for any human being, on or off srb or trb, so it's pointless and only motivated by the wrong impulses.... > >> Other religion newsgroups >> do not have such statements as "Opinions expressed here do not >> necessarily reflect the teachings of Christianity, Islam, etc..." > >This is true. However, none of the other faiths have anything >comparable to the Baha'i Covenant. A non sequiter.... Irrelevant to a group for non-Bahais as well.... > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Re Talk.Religion.Bahai Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <66jqmc$2nc@nntp02.primenet.com>... >I ask the news.groupies indulgence - I know the following has nothing to >do with t.r.b. but since Fred will not read e-mail sent privately: Rather, I will not read email sent by you and other lurking Bahais who accuse me of being a covenant breaker and insist on your version of the truth.... I'm quite happy and open to receiving email from other people.... 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 11, 1997 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Re Talk.Religion.Bahai >>Roger Reini wrote in message <348C4B83.58E6@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >It is not a matter of having anything to hide -- it's a matter of >what's on topic. The subject of the Baha'i Covenant and the eligible >membership of the Universal House of Justice are not, IMHO, on-topic >for news.groups. They are very much on topic for *.religion.bahai, so >I have posted my response there (on a.r.b). Any news.groups reader is >free to go there or to talk.religion.misc (I crossposted the article >there) and read it. This, IMHO, is not hiding anything. It just >doesn't belong in news.groups -- it's not directly germane to the >discussions. Many Bahais have stated they voted NO to protect the covenant or will do so for that reason. Hence, it just doesn't hold water to say these issues shouldn't be discussed on news.groups; if they're going to affect the vote, they belong 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: Thursday, December 11, 1997 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Re Talk.Religion.Bahai Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <66jqmc$2nc@nntp02.primenet.com>... >In article <66jhbp$9kl@news2.zippo.com>, >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>I don't believe a response to this article would be off topic at all. >>It would be entirely appropriate to the discussion of the trb proposal. >>Many of the issues raises by Michael McKenny illuminate what has >>actually been taking place on news.groups FOR MONTHS, affecting >>both the discussion and ultimately the vote. Since few non-Bahais >>know of these realities, which are, have, and will affect this proposal, >>it's entirely proper to discuss them here on news.groups. Unless >>Bahais have something to hide.... >> > >Except I don't think many here - particularly the news.groupies who have >commented - think it is related. So why get them upset? Didn't you read >the responses you got from the news.groupies when you elevated the >rhetoric a few days ago? Listen to them Fred. You honestly are not doing >yourself any favors. Some news.groupies have said. Others have said otherwise. They are not of monolithic opinion.... I'm sure you hope I'll be perceived in that way.... Let me ask you, why have you and other Bahais not responded to the repostings from Juan Cole regarding the long and dirty record Bahais have when it comes to free speech and respect for others' conciences? > >Unless talk.religion.bahai is not your first priority. Which is OK. But >if it is wider recognition of your perceived slights you are looking for, >I am sure the news.groupies would enjoy it if you took your expose' to >a more appropriate place. Have you tried the news media? Really, there >must be more effective mechanisms for getting your complaints heard by a >wider audience, yes? I see you again, as others will by now I'm sure, as DEMONIZING me once more. Dr. Cole in one of the four posts ("To UHJ") here recently observed in so many words this was a typical, common Bahai tactic to gang up on and pressure and individual until he makes a little slip of the tongue providing an excuse for Bahais to flail him all the more unmercifully.... > >I ask the news.groupies indulgence - I know the following has nothing to >do with t.r.b. but since Fred will not read e-mail sent privately: > >Fred, you and I both know there is nothing to hide in the Baha'i Faith. >No secret rituals, no star chambers, no kangaroo courts. Then why the continual opposition to free speech and religious conscience at every level of the Bahai Faith and control of every venue of communication, the DEMONIZING of every individual who happens to speak his or her mind? I urge those who wish to consider the facts for themselves to read Dr. Cole's messages, now available on www.dejanews.com (referred to above), especially if you've begun to believe the characterization of me as someone merely have his own "agenda." I have no hidden agenda. Merely the wish to protect myself and others from suppression and distortion. In the 1 1/2 >years I've been aquainted with you, I don't recall you trying the channels >available to you to solve your problem. But then, your tactics are so >antithetical to Baha'i consultation, I get the impression that you >reject the validity of those channels. If I am incorrect, please correct >me. Mr. Detweiler, former moderator of soc.religion.bahai, attempts above in my opinion to characterize me as an individual with a problem--exonerating Bahais from the long lists of abuses that I and many others believe have occurred. He further intimates above that I am a covenant breaker.... This is a common Bahai tactic used endlessly during the last year and is here again a way of inflaming Bahai passions against trb. A type of spiritual denunciation, Soviet style.... > >The House published "Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order >of Baha'u'llah" in 1988, you can read what Baha'u'llah says about liberty >in His Writings, Shoghi Effendi and the House have reiterated >`Abdu'l-Baha's injunction about women on the House of Justice. You know >`Abdu'l-Baha stated that it is better to be united than right - that such >unity will expose a wrong decision and it will be made right. All of this >you must surely know intellectually. And all of this is available to >everyone - Baha'i and non-Baha'i alike - to review. Everything I've >mentioned is but a few clicks away on the Web. It is, IMO, naive >to think that all will agree with the Baha'i position on these things. >That is why some people are Baha'i but the vast majority are not. Nothing >hidden, no bait-and-switch. And tell me - who is holding the gun to your >head to keep you a Baha'i? Anyone coercing you? You and I both know >that you are free to leave if you find anything objectionable in the >Faith. All of this talk about being oppressed. Doesn't the fact that >you are here saying what you're saying and have been for a year put the >lie to that? Another common Bahai tactic (alluded to by Professor Cole) is to drive people out of the Bahai Faith who might happen to think for themselves. Mr. Detweiler exemplifies this quite well here. > >As long as you aren't arguing for a different succession of authority in >the Faith from what was clearly intended in the written documents of the >Faith, you and I both know we are free to have our own individual >interpretation of what the Writings mean. You and I also know that none >of us individuals - not even the members of the House of Justice acting as >individuals - have a right to foist that opinion on anyone else. I don't agree with your interpretations on anything. Why on Usenet may I speak my own mind and conscience, to Bahais and non-Bahais? > >Remember, just because you think something is true or right, doesn't >mean others will believe that to be the case. You might want to remember that too.... It isn't a question of >repression, it's just that it's not viewed as correct by the larger body >you are trying to convince. What larger body? I know when I feel I am not being understood >I will try again and then be more insistent if I still believe I am not >understood. Then it slowly dawns on me that I AM being understood, people >just don't agree with me. Fred, IMO you, Dr. Cole, Mr. McKinney, etal. >ARE being understood. The vast majority of Baha'is simply do not agree >with you. What we have here is basically an adding of my name to a blacklist.... A strategy used for centuries.... And what do you mean Bahais do not agree with me? Talk.religion.bahai is a Usenet proposal for Bahais and non-Bahais, not just me. Your attempt to personalize the interest poll and make it a referendum on me is a very old and weary trick by now, one which you and other Bahais deserve the blame for, not the victim.... > > >My apologies once again to the news.groups community, In my opinion, you owe it an apology for making excuses for defending censorship.... And practicing it on soc.religion.bahai for so long.... > >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: Thursday, December 11, 1997 8:41 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: Last Call: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Given the holiday vacation schedule of David Lawrence, leaving on the 15th, I'd like to get the 3rd RFD in within a couple of days, by Saturday. If you have any other comments or recommendations to make, please do so right away. -- 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 11, 1997 8:41 AM Subject: Last Call: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Given the holiday vacation schedule of David Lawrence, leaving on the 15th, I'd like to get the 3rd RFD in within a couple of days, by Saturday. If you have any other comments or recommendations to make, please do so right away. -- 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 11, 1997 8:33 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <348F012F.3F94E26A@ford.com>... Sharon Bouchard wrote: >> "This group is for open discussion of issues relating to the Baha'i >> Faith. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the >> teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > >I think that's the best version I've seen. Why should such a disclaimer appear in trb's RFD, but not in soc.religion.bahai's? Doesn't that appear peculiar? Surely, more than coincidence.... Why permit and support such disclaimer when it serves no legitimate Usenet purpose? Other religion newsgroups do not have such statements as "Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the teachings of Christianity, Islam, etc..." 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 11, 1997 8:27 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Sharon Bouchard wrote in message <348eb0e7.6541237@news.cyberatl.net>... >Just a couple of comments: > >1. It would be better to pull the "disclaimer" text into a separate >sentence. As it is, it's buried so deep that voters may not notice >it. As a general "tech writing" rule, it's better to keep sentences >short for this sort of communication. > >Also, it's a little confusing, because "the Baha'i Faith" is >"endorsing" something? Does that mean the Writings? The >Institutions? Or what? > >Lastly, the inclusion of "whipping posts" was not anything I saw in >the discussion on this forum. It is confrontational, unnecessary, and >will make it all the more likely that people who might otherwise vote >Yes will not do so. For that matter, this inclusion troubles me >enough that I myself am seriously considering whether it would not be >better to abstain at this time. > >I am interested in an unmoderated newsgroups for discussion of the >Baha'i Faith. I am not at all interested in promoting any >individual's agenda. > >Instead of: >>>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. > >How about: > >"This group is for open discussion of issues relating to the Baha'i >Faith. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the >teachings of the Baha'i Faith." Such a statement does not appear in soc.religion.bahai's RFD. Why should one appear in trb's? If the motive is not to discredit trb from the outset, then there should not be even any need for a disclaimer. I am willing to compromise but require others compromise too and permit the whipping post disclaimer of the disclaimer in order to protect Bahais and non-bahais from the zealotry of some Bahais later on.... Are you willing to compromise? The phrase comes from something Chris Manvell wrote. I think it fits nicely and address my, and perhaps others', concerns perfectly. I like especially the historical resonance of the image.... > >Comments about soc.religion.bahai are fine in the rationale for >creating this group, but are irrelevant in this context. Let >soc.religion.bahai speak for itself in its own charter. t.r.b. is not >concerned with standards of conduct on s.r.b. or anywhere else. Then why are they and have been concerned with the RFD for trb? > >2. What is the purpose of including the quote from Russ Allberry? >Did I miss the discussion of whether it was worthwhile to include this >text? It certainly is important that voters understand the points >Russ makes (that's why I have quoted and/or paraphrased those points >elsewhere) But why include them in the proposal itself? At best it's >unnecessary, and at worst, in this context it's counterproductive. It should help clarify for everyone the nature of Usenet interest polling on a proposal and emphasize, since many Bahais say they didn't understand before, the meaning of that. Again, it is a compromise. Common in negotiation. If some want a redundant specific statement regarding "Bahai conduct," I insist there be a statement that includes mention of the proper conduct of voting on Usenet. The two should not be kept apart but one might help illuminate the other. Are you willing to compromise, or must all the cards be stacked by those who are anti-trb? 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 11, 1997 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <348C828C.7133@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >(a.r.b. added, news.groups trimmed) > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34886C22.FB1@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >> >The individual(s) posting under the address of "bahai@hotmail.com" may >> >also be the same one (group) that posted numerous other messages under >> >a couple of other "hotmail.com" addresses (including apparently >> >masquerading on a.r.b. as someone else). >> >> Or I think what is much more likely is that he's attempted to hide >> the fact that he's a Bahai by posting several idiotic messages >> on other things.... The fact remains he HAD TO GIVE HIS BAHAI >> ID NUMBER in order for the BCCA to subscribe him to its lists.... > >...unless he/she/they figured out how to get messages onto one of >the lists without subscribing -- which I understand is/was technically >possible. In any event, we don't know what is behind aliases. Again, He HAD to give a Bahai ID to get on to bahai-discuss and he DID immediately respond to messages that were posted there.... Don't know, or don't want to know? Why are you and the BCCA concerned about him? > >> In any event, the tactic of >> >the anonymous individual(s) so doing seems to be the same: provocation >> >and stiring up fruitless controversy. >> >> It's not "fruitless controversy." It's born exactly the fruit he wanted. > >If the same individual or group has indeed used several different >"hotmail.com" addresses on a.r.b., then my opinion is that his/her/their >aim was to cause controversy for controversy's sake - i.e., fruitless >controversy. Or, if you prefer, the "fruit" sought was confusion, >dissention, etc. You have not been the only target of this apparent >effort. Neither I nor anyone else I can recall has claimed he used more than one account. If I have not been the only one targeted by him, who else has? Why aren't you and the BCCA concerned that he did IN FACT target me and the trb proposal? ANSWER THAT ONE. > >> He blackballed and smeared me and got me kicked off the BCCA >> lists which calls into question the motives of the BCCA itself and >> whether or not they or someone on their "committee" is behind >> bahai@hotmail.com. To the extent that the BCCA is part of the >> Bahai administration, it also calls into question whether or the >> Bahai institutions back such underhanded intrigue and may have >> participated in his demonizing of me.... > >"bahai@hotmail.com"'s style of posting was IMHO similar to that >appearing under a couple of other aliases. I have not seen the >postings you're referring to (which I pesume were not on a.r.b.), but >"smearing" is consistent with that unfortunate style as are attempts >to provoke a reaction from you. Is this a new line of justification and excuses for him? And the result, the BCCA kicking me off its lists? I don't believe his "style" was similar to anyone else's. Are you merely attempting to "provoke" a response? > >I don't see how BCCA or anyone -- regardless of their opinion of your >net-comportment -- could be swayed by them. Nor do I see how >"bahai@hotmail.com" could "get you kicked off" of anything. The notion >that the BCCA or any Baha'i institutions are behind any of it is IMHO >absolutely ridiculous. Not in mine. Rather, quite possible.... THE SILENCE SCREAMS IT!!! > >> I am sorry to learn that such >> >unBaha'i-like activity was directed at you. We should all, IMHO, work >> >together to observe netiquette and even more to put Baha'i teachings in >> >to practice in our net behavior. >> >> But that is not what the BCCA has done. I immediately wrote them >> a message about the activities of bahai@hotmail.com and they >> wrote me a message back ignoring his despicable conduct and >> blaming ME for it. I posted there message along with the woman's >> threatening message to me to Bahai-Discuss and news.groups. > >How do you know that conduct was ignored? He continued to post after I requested that the BCCA DO something, as did the woman who threatened me. The BCCA's immediate response was to write back blaming me.... > >> Instead of doing anything to either one of them, they waited EIGHT >> weeks and then precisely when predominant opinion seemed to >> be going in favor of trb removed me from their mailing lists and >> posted a message to all of them denouncing me and claiming >> they weren't interferring in the trb vote but.... > >Not being part of the process, I can only like you speculate as to >the delay you speak of. Since you have offered one opinion, let me >offer another: that the decision of what to do in your case was not >an easy one, hence made after considerable consultation. So that improves its injustice? It still >seems ludicrous to me to assert they would "time" it to affect the >t.r.b. vote: 1) they have other concerns, and 2) anyone could see >that their action could affect the t.r.b. vote either way (they would >know, for instance, that you would post publicly about it as you did >concerning your renewed suspension from Talisman (a non-BCCA list) not >long ago). To call it "ludicrous" is ludicrous to me.... Your agruments are quite weak justifications in my opinion.... I am, incidentally, subscribed to talisman.... > >> >What I've observed about anonymous addresses on several newsgroups: >> >they can be innocently and honestly used, but they also may serve as >> >cover for many kinds of mischief and wasting of bandwidth that people >> >would not do under their own names and real E-mail addresses. >> >> In this case, all of which has been supported by the BCCA and >> ergo by Bahai institutions in so far as they amount to one.... I'm >> forwarding this message too to the UHJ since it summarizes >> again the misconduct and abuse of power I believe the BCCA >> has committed, and I hope they are investigating and >> consulting on. > >The connections you draw are unsupported and IMO counter-intuitive. Quite the reverse given the consistent opposition of Bahais to free speech and religious conscience on every venue under their control.... In my opinion, you are ignoring what only makes sense. >It is certainly your right to seek redress for what you feel is an >injustice, but in this case, I'm sure any "investigation" would find >nothing there except unfortunate behavior by an individual or group >smearing, in effect, the name of our faith by using it in an e-mail >address to make provocative, outrageous, or ridiculous postings. You completely ignore above that he damaged me personally and the proposal for trb. The BCCA proved itself unfit to investigate what happen by its biased handling of the situation. That's why I've appealed to the UHJ to investigate the BCCA, if Bahais truly care about justice.... > >This is all I have to say on the matter. Do you actually believe that resolves it? > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 7:51 AM Subject: Re: ng dropped from InfoRamp news server rklwaw@TheRamp.net wrote in message <881802664.1162805256@dejanews.com>... >I find that as of today, Wednesday, December 10, 1997, >alt.religion.bahai is no longer available on InfoRamp's >news server. InfoRamp serves much of north central and >northeastern Illinois, USA. I now will begin to view >this page via DejaNews. And are the administrative headquarters of the Bahai Faith in Wilmette, Illinois? > >I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, so >draw your own conclusions. > >I hope there was just some temporary flub somewhere in >InfoRamp's service. Let's hope.... > >Rick Koshko >rklwaw@TheRamp.net >https://members.tripod.com/~Rick_K > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Former bahais Do you support the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith? Do you think Muslims should vote for or against it? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <348F31A5.315E29FC@erols.com>... >nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Peace be upon all truth seekers, >> >> I invite you to read some of the newer articles that have been added to >> my bahai enlightenment page. One article of special interest might be 2 >> emails I recently received from former bahais who are turning now onto >> the path of Islam (praise be to God). > >Allahu Akbar. > >They only did justice to their own soul and saved themselves from >the punishment reserved for those who reject the clear message of >Islam. > >Hoping that other Bahais will also see the difference between >the original religion of God, and the second-rate "philosophical" >work of Husain Ali. Both are ways of living; however, only Islam >is divine and will be accepted in the hereafter... > >Peace. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 7:41 AM Subject: Re: Former bahais Afshin, Since talk.religion.bahai would be not only open to non-Bahais but also Muslims, and everyone else for that matter, do you and other Muslims support the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in message <881770430.1633288193@dejanews.com>... >Peace be upon all truth seekers, > >I invite you to read some of the newer articles that have been added to >my bahai enlightenment page. One article of special interest might be 2 >emails I recently received from former bahais who are turning now onto >the path of Islam (praise be to God). Other former bahis are also >encouraged to send me their stories of disillusionment with the bahai >faith. Peace. > >The site is: > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >afrashteh@geocities.com > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) Again, what are your views on the talk.religion.bahai proposal? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <348DFF7A.BBC6CCBB@erols.com>... >Abir Majid wrote: >> >> Assalamu Alaikum, > >Wa Aleikum. > >> [4:94] and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: "Thou art >> none of a believer!" > >Allow me to help you with the full quote: > > "O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, >INVESTIGATE > CAREFULLY, and say not to anyone who offers you a salutation: > "Thou art none of a believer!" Coveting the perishable goods of this > life: with Allah are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye > yourselves before, till Allah conferred on you His favours: Therefore > CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE. For Allah is well aware of all that ye do." > [The Holy Quran, 4:94] > >In 1974, Rabita Islamica (Muslim World League) made it official: Bahaism >and Qadianism are forms of Kofr; their unfortunate followers, if after >having been shown the truth, insist on their Kofr and false >interpretation, >are Kafir (unbelievers)... Is this enought "CAREFUL INVESTIGATION"? >Bahais refute the absolute Finality of Prophethood in Muhammad(SAAW), >thus they have rejected a fundamental doctrine of Islam which is >substantiated by over 100 Hadith and many verse of Quran. Yet, they >claim they believe in Islam and believe it has been protected!!! >Muslims know that during the time of the holy Prophet(SAAW), those >who claimed to be Muslim (or believe in Islam), yet they refuted any >doctrine of Islam where called Hypocrites... > >The holy Prophet(SAAW) and all companions rejected every claimant >to Prophethood and had not doubt that their followers were not >believers. The Holy Prophet(SAW) said: > > My position in relation to the prophets who came before me > can be explained by the following example: A man erected a > building and adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he > left an empty niche, in the corner where just one brick was > missing. People looked around the building and marveled at > its beauty, but wondered why a brick was missing from that > niche? I am like unto that one missing brick and I am the > last in the line of the Prophets. > (Recorded by: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, > Babu Khatimin-Nabiyyin, Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi) > > There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and each one > of them will pronounce to the world that he is a prophet, > but I am the last in the line of the Prophets of God and no > Prophet will come after me. > (Recorded by: Abu Dawood, Tirmizi) > >This selective way of quoting Quran and Hadith and the heretical >spin Bahais and Qadianis put on the verses of Quran is what >has convinced me they are not looking for guidance. They are >just attempting to misguide the uninformed with out of context >quotes... > >> Dear sir, let me declare that while I am a Baha'i, and while I don't >> pretend to be or, disguise myself as a Muslim (with capital M), let me >> testify: >> >> Ash'hadu an la ilaha illa Allah wa ash'hadu anna Muhammadan Rasoolu >> Allah wa khatamul nabiyeen. (I testify that there is no god but God and >> that Muhammad is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets). > >Dear sir, without wanting to offend anyone, allow me to quote >a verse of the Quran that indicates those who utter the Kalima >but reject a fundamental concept of Islam (one of the commandments >of Islam) are not believers: > > When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness > that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah." Yea, Allah > knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth > witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars. They have made > their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct > (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds. That > is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal > was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not. When > thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when > they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as > (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to > stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. > They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be > on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)! [Quran, 63:1-4] > >> Now I ask you and nokhodchi to let God judge my faith and my >> sincerity rather than appoint yourselves as judges over others. > >Allah(SWT) is the judge and will judge in the hereafter. In >the meanwhile, I suggest you contemplate on the following: > > And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not > be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of > the losers. [Quran, 3:85] > > When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed, > and to the Messenger": Thou seest the Hypocrites avert > their faces from thee in disgust. [Quran, 4.061] > >> I think that no matter how knowledgeable you think you are about your >> religion, there should be no harm in other people quoting the Qur'an for >> you (just in the slightest chance that you may have missed something). >> Why wouldn't you want to discuss the Book you believe in, specially if >> it's done in a respectful way with civility and friendliness. If you >> don't like an argument, then refute it and don't worry about the >> intelligence or naiveté of your fellow brother or sister reader. > >I appreciate your concern (!!!), but the type of selective quotes >and false interpretation long time Bahais and Ahmadis has been >posting on these newsgroups, only serves to misguide the >uninformed. Those on alt.religion.islam and soc.religion.islam >have seen who the followers of this "faiths" insist on their own >strange ideas, even after much truth has been provided and the >truth of the matter has been cleared. > > "But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales, > without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path > of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will > be a Humiliating Penalty." [Quran, 31:6] > >And Muslims give up on their nonsense, because they see >that those people are not looking for guidance. They are >only engaging in vain talk: > > "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: > 'To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek > not the ignorant'." [Quran, 28:55] > >They simply refuse to accept the truth: > > Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own > vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him > astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and > understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, > will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will > ye not then receive admonition? [Quran, 45:23] > > "Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and > the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in > the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of > those entitled to curse,- > > Except those who repent and make amends and openly declare > (the Truth): To them I turn; for I am Oft-returning, Most > Merciful. [Quran, 2:159-160] > >Dear sir, come to what Allah(SWT) has revealed and you claim >to believe in. Are you going to submit to Allah's teachings >or are you going to follow you own desire? > > "Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance > and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: > For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. > > Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, > until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented > indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We > prepared a punishment most grievous." [Quran, 4:17-18] > >================================================ >A Muslim; >Submitter to the will of Allah recorded in Islam. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) If what you say is true, how do your views relate to the interest polling vote on talk.religion.bahai now being discussed 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 Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <348ACF4B.FC545DE8@erols.com>... >nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Assalam alikum brothers and sisters in Islam, > >Wa Aleikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahe Wa Barakatu. > >> For THE TRUTH ABOUT BAHAISM REFER TO THIS SITE: >> https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >In Islamic countries, it is well known that Bahais and >Qadianis (Ahmadis) impersonate Muslims and attempt to >influence the uninformed with their man-made ideas. >This is why these two deviant off-shoots of Islam >have been declared as Kofr (form of disbelief) by all >Muslim nations and scholars and are not allowed to >portray their man-made "faith" as Islam... > >For over a century now, these cults have had a free >hand at misguiding people in the West. Their rulers >have hidden the truth and presented a rosey picture of >their history and faith to increase their wealth and >membership. What they have presented to new candidates >is not divine at all, it is man-made ideology, hidden >behind an attractive wail of some Muslim doctrine. > >Yet, Allah Ta'ala in Quran tells us that: Islam is His >complete and universal religion and that anyone who desires >another religion will be a looser on the day of judgment... > >What Bahai and Qadiani leadership has done in the West >is really very easy to understand: > > They like to entrap people and slowly brainwash > them, so that the next generations will follow > their doctrine without question - the children will > call themselves what their parents did (Bahais or > Ahmadis) and will never care to find the truth about > these man-made cults. > > It is fitting to point out that Muhammad Ali Bab's book > of "revelation" is not available to any of the Bahais > to read!!! Mirza Ghulam Qadiani's complete writings > still remain untranslated in Urdu and are not available > to their won followers!! Why? Is this what a divine > religion would do? What kind of "prophets" were these, > whose writings are not made available to their followers > in the West? > >It is sad to see the Jim Jones of Islamic countries have >found some success in the West, because the Muslims for >a while did not fulfill their obligation of exposing their >deviant heretics. Alhamdolellah, now we have sites like >this one which expose the truth about Bahaism and >Qadianism (Ahmadiyya). > >A very basic doctrine of Islam requires all Muslims to >believe in the totality of Islam and to bear witness that >Muhammad(SAAW) was the very last prophet of Allah. So, >as far as Muslims are concerned, neither Bahais nor >Qadianis (Ahmadis) can quote Quran or Islamic literature >for us, when they have rejected such a basic article of >Islam. > >I like to suggest to all Muslim brothers and sisters, that >we need to be very careful about what we read on internet >or we hear from people who appear to be Muslims. Our first >source of instructions is the Holy Quran (and I recommend an >authentic translation like Yusuf Ali). The first revealed >verse of Quran starts with "Read" and this is what Allah >wants us to do: Read the Quran and not merely follow what >others claim Quran tells us. > >As Muslims, we are told to (1) obey Allah Ta'ala (i.e. worship >him and obey his commandments) (2) obey Muhammad(SAAW) and set >him as our perfect life example. Those who are true believers, >should be eager to study the complete teachings of Islam and >example of hazrat Muhammad(SAAW) for themselves. Just as we >are willing to spend much time in the pursuit of our wordly >education and daily affairs, we should also be willing to >dedicate some time every day to understand the matter of our >existance and the hereafter... > >Many people have: health insurance, car insurance, liability >insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, ... >DO YOU HAVE HEREAFTER INSURANCE? It is free! Read Quran >and understand the application of hazrat Muhammad(SAAW)... >You invest for your old age, also invest a little for your >hereafter... > >Lesson One: > There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah; > Allah is All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Loving, All-Merciful, ... > but also Just and Fair at Punishment. > > Islam is the Divine religion which we will follow in its > totality - We do not pick and choose. > >With Allah is Success. > >Wassalam. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:55 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Rick Schaut wrote in message <66hsm8$doi@news.microsoft.com>... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <66bd7j$ci4@news2.zippo.com>... >>Rick Schaut wrote in message <669ruh$nde@news.microsoft.com>... >>>I have no desire to bring shame on anyone, but I have a duty to >>>ensure that the facts are presented accurately. > >>You mean as you see them from YOUR point of view.... > > >There's little room for bias, here, no matter how hard you try to imply >otherwise. Let's see.... Your opinion is fact, everything else is bias.... > >>>[The BCCA-CC's] members are elected from the full membership of >>>the BCCA, and one of their responsibilities is to enforce the rules of >BCCA >>>sponsored e-mail lists. Rules which you have violated by your own >>>admission. > >>Two or three times, EIGHT weeks before they cynically removed >>me from the mailing lists, > >We can quibble over how often you broke those rules, but the fact is that >you broke them well after they had been brought to your attention. You >admit to this. How often did bahai@hotmail.com break them? The woman who threatened me? You, like the BCCA, do not seem at all concerned about them.... How interesting and revealing.... As is the fact they waited EIGHT weeks to strike their blow against me, and then when the general atmosphere was definitely improving, when such people as Sharon Bouchard and others were changing their minds and coming out in support of trb.... No coincidence? > >>>Secondly, the Coordinating Committee contacted you about this at least as >>>early as last September [...], yet you continued to violate those rules... > >>That's false.... > >Which is false, Fred? That the BCCA-CC contacted you about violations of >list rules? That you violated those list rules after they contacted you? >Both of those statements are true, and can be verified based on the text and >dates of the e-mail messages I have and upon the dates of articles you >posted to news.groups (articles which can be found via a search on >dejanews). There's more to it than that. My messages to them requesting they intervene with Bahai@hotmail.com and the threatening woman were ignored, nay, they countenanced such actions.... And then I'm supposed to follow their "guidance"? Ha, ha, ha.... >>Your approach is the >>usual one for so many Bahais, as for the BCCA.... DEMONIZE >>the individual.... > >I'm sorry you feel demonized, Fred, but I've stated nothing but facts. Yes, everyone else is biased.... Had >you not attempted to shift blame from yourself for your own actions, I >wouldn't have said a thing. Yet the fact remains: you were removed from >BCCA sponsored e-mail lists because you broke the rules of those lists, not >because someone "framed" you. Anything I would say would be biased, so.... > >>>There is no evidence that anyone else has >>>broken the rules for these lists. > >>False. Bahai@hotmail.com REPOSTED FOUR messages of mine, >>more, I believe, than I ever reposted from Bahai-disucss to > >He posted articles you had posted to alt.religion.bahai. A search of >dejanews shows that no postings made by Bahai@hotmail.com contained private >messages sent to any of the BCCA sponsored e-mail lists. I stand by the >statement above, that there is no evidence of violations of BCCA rules other >than the evidence of your own violations of those rules. Yes, I am the greatest evil-doer of all of human history.... > > >>>>It seems inescapable to me that very >>>>similar approaches have been and are being used by some >>>>Bahais during this discussion for talk.religion.bahai.... > >>>I'm not quite sure how a conclusion that isn't adequately supported by the >>>facts can be considered "inescapable". Perhaps, some day, I'll >understand. > >>It's evident Mr. Schaut that you have no sincere interest in >>understanding other people's opinions; you have all the facts.... >>and want all the control over what can and can not be said.... >>like most Bahais.... > >The only thing that's evident, here, is that you prefer to impugn the >integrity of others rather than work to provide sufficient evidence to >support your claims. Your bias is showing.... Not the facts.... > > >Rick Schaut >The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views >and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. > > 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, December 09, 1997 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai McKenny Michael wrote in message <66il03$g8k@freenet-news.carleton.ca>... > >From: rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) > >I have never read the paper in question. But based on the explanation >Mike gave, it seems to me that it questioned the authority of >'Abdu'l-Baha, the Center of the Baha'i Covenant. It was posted to alt.religion.bahai in July or August. It can be found on www.dejanews.com by searching "Service of Women" or each word separately.... 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, December 09, 1997 9:38 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai rboatright on BIX wrote in message ... >The answer is, soc.religion.bahai. None of the mods would hesitate for an >INSTANT to post a message that came in and said "How do the Baha'i >teachings apply to someone who is posting baha'i webpage adds in non-bahai >newsgroups?" Or any polite variation of the same. > >Rick Boatright >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai You seem to have missed Guy Macon's message to the effect that exactly such a posted was REJECTED by soc.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: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Re Talk.Religion.Bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <348C4B83.58E6@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >McKenny Michael wrote: > >> Since I am one of the four individuals named in article #327619 >> posted Thursday December 4th to news.groups as having faced > >I will respond to this article in talk.religion.misc and >alt.religion.bahai under the title "Response to M. McKenny". The >response would be seriously off-topic in news.groups. I don't believe a response to this article would be off topic at all. It would be entirely appropriate to the discussion of the trb proposal. Many of the issues raises by Michael McKenny illuminate what has actually been taking place on news.groups FOR MONTHS, affecting both the discussion and ultimately the vote. Since few non-Bahais know of these realities, which are, have, and will affect this proposal, it's entirely proper to discuss them here on news.groups. Unless Bahais have something to hide.... > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) 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, December 09, 1997 9:03 AM To: Keith Tookey Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran I have not read your message. Please post to 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 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Tookey Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 9:24 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:02 AM To: Keith Tookey Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Please post to news.groups. Do not email me directly. 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: Keith Tookey Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 9:26 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:42 AM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran Ditto. Thanks for anything you can in all honesty say..... 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: Neil Crellin Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Saturday, December 06, 1997 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran >"Frederick Glaysher" writes: >> What of the human rights of Bahais in America, Europe, and indeed >> thoroughout the world? What of their rights to free speech and >> religious conscience? What about the rights of non-Bahais, Muslims >> and others, to state their opinions about the Bahai Faith without >> the censorship of soc.religion.bahai or some other quasi-Bahai >> propaganda mouthpiece interferring? The Bahai Faith cannot have >> it both ways.... If we want and ask the world to care about the >> oppressed in Iran, we Bahais need to stop the heretic trials here in the >> United States, including the ones on Usenet and private mailing lists.... >> >> I'm forwarding this message to the UHJ because I believe it goes >> to the heart of the issues dealing with the suppression of free >> speech by Bahais massively mounting a NO vote against >> talk.religion.bahai on news.groups.... > >I believe you are making a public nuisance of yourself to the UHJ, to >news.groups, and to Bahai's of good faith everywhere and I'm really >tired of it. If I were a Bahai, seeing these shenanigans you engage >in, I would seriously ask myself if I wanted a public forum in which >seeming nutcases like you could so badly misrepresent my faith. >This is how you undermine your own enterprise, Fred. Right now, I >wouldn't blame anyone on a private Bahai list for having extreme >misgivings about t.r.b. given your behavior, and I think they might be >justified in organizing a NO campaign. The tradeoffs between appearing >censorious vs appearing to be represented by people like you is >starting to look very break-even to me, and I'm a really disinterested >party to all this. I think this is what happened last time, and if you >don't *CUT IT OUT*, is what will happen this time. Stop being such a >damned irritating pest, and apply some of the famous consultation >practices of the Bahai's to your problems and maybe you'll hav better >success, but stop pissing everyone off like this. > >-Neil Crellin ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:41 AM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran The techies don't believe or understand what Juan Cole and others have gone through with the faith.... They need to hear from you and others and that it's true.... 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: Kate Wrightson Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 12:14 PM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran >In article <66bif1$ee0@news2.zippo.com>, >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>What of the human rights of Bahais in America, Europe, and indeed >>thoroughout the world? What of their rights to free speech and >>religious conscience? What about the rights of non-Bahais, Muslims >>and others, to state their opinions about the Bahai Faith without >>the censorship of soc.religion.bahai or some other quasi-Bahai >>propaganda mouthpiece interferring? The Bahai Faith cannot have >>it both ways.... If we want and ask the world to care about the >>oppressed in Iran, we Bahais need to stop the heretic trials here in the >>United States, including the ones on Usenet and private mailing lists.... >> >>I'm forwarding this message to the UHJ because I believe it goes >>to the heart of the issues dealing with the suppression of free >>speech by Bahais massively mounting a NO vote against >>talk.religion.bahai on news.groups.... > >Get your irrelevant crap off news.groups, where it is completely >off-topic. You've been in my killfile for months now, Mr. Glaysher, and >the only way I'd vote YES on your group is if you promised to stop >filling news.groups with off-topic stuff that somehow 'proves' you're >being persecuted by other Baha'i's on USENET, and then actually fulfilled >the promise. > >-- >________________________________________________________________________ >kate@rigel.econ.uga.edu kate wrightson blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:40 AM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran See full thread for my original post.... -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Pascoe Newsgroups: news.groups Date: Saturday, December 06, 1997 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran >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 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. >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (at home) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:14 AM Subject: Re: ESPERANTO IS INTERNATIONAL LANGAUGE? David Wolff wrote in message ... >In article <34889A42.419C@uk.com>, kenyao wrote: >>Learn and promote Esperanto International Language. Please contact > >This was posted by a known troller who uses forged addresses. Please >ignore him and hopefully some day he'll get tired of his childishness. What evidence do you have that he's a troll? Merely calling him one doesn't prove anything.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:10 AM Subject: Re: MODERATORS ARE BUNCH OF RED NEKKKS AMEIKKANS? BAHAIS ARE RACIST #1?CENSORSHIP CONTINUES? kenyao wrote in message <348B14DE.5D67@uk.com>... >Why we all hate these Moderators racist bunch of Red Nekkks. They >suppress anything . I am agree with you all they have gone too much >to censorship Bahais. We have two kind of enemies of Bahai within and >outside. The moderators are within enemies of faith, they creat more >problems for all of us. They are runing Bahais away that to attract >more. Bahais always talk too much than action. I plea for thier >resignations without further disunity. They are bunch of Red Nekks. >KENYAO >I AM ALPHA I AM OMEGA I AM BETA I AM TITA? Mr. Reini, you claim this person is a troll.... Can you explain why? Are you sure he isn't someone hiding his identity out of fear of Bahai retaliation? There's more knowledge of the Bahai Faith inbetween his lines here than I suspect some Bahais would like to recognize.... 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, December 08, 1997 7:54 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Chris wrote in message <5RgAABA+Tvi0Ewv$@baha.demon.co.uk>... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote >>You might recall, Chris, that bahai@hotmail.com was criticized by >>you and a few others and THEN responded to the effect explaining >>why he posted under a pseudonym.... Clearly, he was receiving >>messages, not just blind-posting.... They have his ID #.... > >His/her original response to me was after he posted to ARB, I think. >But, now you mention it, you may well be right that he/she did respond >to posts on BD. Anyway, I didn't say that he/she wasn't subscribed to >BD under another name, I just said that it is possible to post blind, >though not always. Thus while they have his/her ID No., they may well >not know who b@h.c is even so. When subscribing to BCCA lists, one is also asked for one's name and address and phone number. I could post the e-form here if anyone wants.... Bahai@hotmail.com served the BCCA interests, by attacking and discrediting me and talk.religion.bahai.... As did the woman who attacked me, and that's why they kicked me off and not them.... 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, December 08, 1997 7:42 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Private If you can respond in any way to Kathy Pascoe, it would be a great help.... 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: Sunday, December 07, 1997 1:37 PM Subject: Private >Greetings. > If you are well, it is well. > Elizabeth Holden ab248@freenet.carleton.ca > I am working on separate post for news.groups. Sorry for great >busyness which has reduced my participation. I hope tomorrow at the >latest I'll post my hopefully significant comment. > May this find you well and may the future exceed our hopes. > Michael > >p.s. I don't really feel that reply to Dean is quite on topic for >news.groups. I'm trying to be more precise in forthcoming post. > > > >-- >"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 7:40 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) Afshin, Okay. But if you can bring in about a 1,000 YES votes when the voting starts, it might help.... Bahai opposition to trb has been fierce all fall and shows no sign of letting up. I honestly do believe the exchanges between Bahais and Muslims were fruitful for all sides, and trb would provide a highly visible newsgroup for such further discussion to take place.... I see that as in the best interests of both Muslims and Bahais. 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: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 1:45 PM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 7:35 AM To: roxanamorgan11@home.com Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran I have not read your private email to me. Please do not email me directly. Kindly post your ideas to 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 -----Original Message----- From: Roxana Morgan Newsgroups: news.groups To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 9:32 PM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran >Dear Fred: > >Who are Baha'is? I thought you and Chris and Roger and... were all >Baha'is. Why do you persist with making such unqualified remarks. I am >a Baha'i and I am not opposed to t.r.b. Such prejudicial remarks, >though, are not ones anyone should stand for quietly. Each Baha'i >person has his or her own mind on the matter. >You were insulted by some people. This does not give you the moral >right to insult us all (including, supposedly, yourself!). Isn't this, >in fact, what you are doing? > >Sincerely, >Roxana Morgan > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Roger Reini wrote in message <348933c9.105537439@news.zippo.com>... >> >On 5 Dec 1997 23:33:08 +0100, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: >> > >> > >> >>So what is wrong with death sentences for two Bahai spies?! >> > >> >In all likelihood, the espionage accusations are simply trumped-up >> >charges intended to cover up the real reason for the death sentences >> >-- namely, that they are Baha'is. >> > >> >Religious prejudice is most unfortunate. Religious persecution is >> >even more so. >> >> I can't for the life of me understand how the adamant opposition of >> Bahais to talk.religion.bahai differs from religious prejudice and >> persecution.... >> >> 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, December 08, 1997 7:34 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai Well, we're going to miss you! If you can check in occasionally and add a word or two on anything, it would be appreciated.... especially right now with Kathy Pascoe and a few other threads.... 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, December 07, 1997 12:00 PM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Fw: Proving Abdu'l Baha Wrong Could you repost this to news.groups when you have a chance? 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: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan@umich.edu Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 9:39 AM Subject: Proving Abdu'l Baha Wrong >Greetings, Dean, from Ottawa. > May the gods grant you good health, long life and an increasing >understanding of the religion with which you identify yourself. > > You wrote: >>Who wants to show `Abdu'l-Baha to be incorrect? Who are these >>people who want to "make it important"? > > It is important to Abdu'l Baha, if you include yourself among >those who understand he still exists, that Abdu'l Baha be believed to >be incorrect. > Abdu'l Baha and his father agree with every scientist worthy of >the name, every competent historian, every decent religious person and >every worthwhile student that to impose your belief of historical >reality, your doctrinal definition of Abdu'l Baha's words, your >compiled canon of the minority of the Baha'i Scripture (simply because >the majority remains untranslated) on all of mankind, to dÙ}ºate your >beliefs on anyone else is sinful, evil and an indication of the extent >to which humanity has failed to evolve. > By the triumph of your fundamentalism, by the unwillingness you have >to entertain the possibility that the literal text of the translated >minority of Baha'i Writings could be perceived bi ÚÑ¡ÉÍj¤øñcorrectly, >differently than how you perceive it you have demonstrated the failure and >the defeat of your prophet. > On the Imbas list pagans asked for examples of religious wars >conducted by pagans and the only example provided was the battle fought >between residents of two villages in Egypt who were mocked by a pagan poet >and called the perpetrators of an infamy unique in history. > It is you fundamentalist monotheists who have in the name of Deity >stained Mother Earth red with the blood of others, due to your >unwillingness to open your hearts and minds. You take the lifework of >souls so precious millions believe them Prophets and Manifestations of God >and toss these jewels into the gutter of your inflexible intolerance. The >noble peace-creating hopes of those whose lives were ûfilled with >unendurable agony you burn away with your passion and pride, your deafness >to the words of those you call your spiritual guides and your insistence >that only how you see reality, only how truth is defined by those who >think as you do is correct. > Your Abdu'l Baha was in London, I believe, when certain Christian >ministers came and spoke to him. And when these fundamentalists left, >Abdu'l Baha said, "Jesus is ashamed of them". Honestly, what do you think >Abdu'l Baha thinks of you and your kind who have turned the vernal showers >of divine potential into the desert of your desire to dictate what others >may think and believe, who have replicated the conquest of the message of >the gentle Shepherd by the ravening wolves who donned the garment of His >name, you who have taken the words of the Prince of Peace, the cutting >edge of tolerant monotheism and proven that history, far from being >rational or emotional, scientific or artistic is a damned chain from which >the Universal Manifestation of God was powerless to free humanity? > Abdu'l Baha said that just as an ugly man may call himself >beautiful, so someone may call himself a Baha'i whom fifty years of >exposure to Baha'u''lah's Revelation failed to turn into one loving >humanity. If you disagree with him take up your disagreement with him. > By their fruits shall ye know them, to answer whichever literalist >it was who pondered the relevance of these words today, may also be >employed in this context to assist one to determine his inclusion or his >exclusion from that category of individuals who are really growing on one >harmonious Tree of Life. > It is very easy. If you have an open mind, if you accept the >possibility others may be right and you may be wrong, if you agree with >Abdu'l Baha that Abdu'l Baha's words on such matters as Greek historical >events may be subject to verification and others must be allowed to >believe what they will on such matters, indeed, on all matters, then you >are a fruit growing on the Tree of Life. If you do not, then you are >something else, whatever you may call yourself. > May inflexible, intolerant, imperialistic monotheism become >infinitely insignificant, indeed extinct. > Peace, > Michael > >± > >-- >"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 11:50 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in message <881431024.11829@dejanews.com>... >Assalam alikum brothers and sisters in Islam, > >I was just browsing through the articles in this newsgroup when I came >across an article by Abir Majid. Abir Majid has posted this article in >several islamic newsgroups as well as the soc.culture.indonesian >newsgroup. He never says that he is a bahai nor does he directly >advertise bahaism. He has even gone as far as saying "my muslim brothers" >as if he is a muslim. He does this so that he can sow confusion in the >minds of the muslims about the day of Judgement. His covert tactics are >typical of bahais. Permit me to suggest a nuanced "some" Bahais.... > >I would like to announce to all of you the existence of my site which is >meant to deal with the bahai pests like Abir Majid. The site is located >at : https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm . It is also >listed in yahoo! under bahai faith --> opposing views. Abir Majid has >given a very good example of bahai decptive missionary techniques. In >fact in that site among the 35+ articles, there is an article entitled >"Bahai decptive missionary tactics - Entrapment" and it explains how >their own God, Bahaullah advised them to do this. I encourage you all to >read the site and immunise yourself with the sword of truth against bahai >pests like Abir Majid. Whatever the merits or demerits of this particular situation and person, I invite you, Afshin, to consider joining the discussion for an unmoderated news.group on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai.... This discussion is taking place on news.groups and should move to a vote in January, 1998. Since you and other Muslims have participated on alt.religion.bahai, while having your posts rejected by soc.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai would offer a place where uncensored views and exchanges of opinion between Bahais and Muslims could take place without anyone else interferring.... I believe much favorable interreligious exchange took place in the past on alt.religion.bahai and would look forward to hearing from you and other Muslims on talk.religion.bahai.... [clip] >For THE TRUTH ABOUT BAHAISM REFER TO THIS SITE: > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >afrashteh@geocities.com >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca > 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, December 07, 1997 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Bahai decptions (was Re:Do you care?) nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in message <881431024.11829@dejanews.com>... >Assalam alikum brothers and sisters in Islam, > >I was just browsing through the articles in this newsgroup when I came >across an article by Abir Majid. Abir Majid has posted this article in >several islamic newsgroups as well as the soc.culture.indonesian >newsgroup. He never says that he is a bahai nor does he directly >advertise bahaism. He has even gone as far as saying "my muslim brothers" >as if he is a muslim. He does this so that he can sow confusion in the >minds of the muslims about the day of Judgement. His covert tactics are >typical of bahais. Permit me to suggest a nuanced "some" Bahais.... > >I would like to announce to all of you the existence of my site which is >meant to deal with the bahai pests like Abir Majid. The site is located >at : https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm . It is also >listed in yahoo! under bahai faith --> opposing views. Abir Majid has >given a very good example of bahai decptive missionary techniques. In >fact in that site among the 35+ articles, there is an article entitled >"Bahai decptive missionary tactics - Entrapment" and it explains how >their own God, Bahaullah advised them to do this. I encourage you all to >read the site and immunise yourself with the sword of truth against bahai >pests like Abir Majid. Whatever the merits or demerits of this particular situation and person, I invite you, Afshin, to consider joining the discussion for an unmoderated news.group on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai.... This discussion is taking place on news.groups and should move to a vote in January, 1998. Since you and other Muslims have participated on alt.religion.bahai, while having your posts rejected by soc.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai would offer a place where uncensored views and exchanges of opinion between Bahais and Muslims could take place without anyone else interferring.... I believe much favorable interreligious exchange took place in the past on alt.religion.bahai and would look forward to hearing from you and other Muslims on talk.religion.bahai.... [clip] >For THE TRUTH ABOUT BAHAISM REFER TO THIS SITE: > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >afrashteh@geocities.com >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca > 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, December 07, 1997 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran Roger Reini wrote in message <348933c9.105537439@news.zippo.com>... >On 5 Dec 1997 23:33:08 +0100, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > > >>So what is wrong with death sentences for two Bahai spies?! > >In all likelihood, the espionage accusations are simply trumped-up >charges intended to cover up the real reason for the death sentences >-- namely, that they are Baha'is. > >Religious prejudice is most unfortunate. Religious persecution is >even more so. I can't for the life of me understand how the adamant opposition of Bahais to talk.religion.bahai differs from religious prejudice and persecution.... 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, December 07, 1997 11:26 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran -- Neil Crellin wrote in message ... >"Frederick Glaysher" writes: Stop being such a >damned irritating pest, and apply some of the famous consultation >practices of the Bahai's to your problems and maybe you'll hav better >success, but stop pissing everyone off like this. The consultation practices are a complete fraud.... They were "used" last vote to marshall an overwhelming NO vote and have regularly been used again. Please see the four messages I've reposted with the permission of Dr. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, titled "To UHJ" for further background on the "consultation" practices of Bahais.... His messages reveal quite well how similar practices in use on news.groups have a long history most here know nothing about and yet are pertinent to this proposal and vote. Note especially his statement regarding the DEMONIZING of anyone who might not toe the party line.... Unfortunately, I cannot but see this conflict over free speech in a broader, wider light or context. I believe it is valid to call upon that context during this discussion, which, after all, is taking place on a free and open forum that is the result of a long history and tradition of respect for the exchange of varying opinions, not their suppression.... I'm sorry if that "pisses" you and others off but let me urge you and others again to read Dr. Cole's messages so that you might begin to realize how endemic the censorship problem really is in the Bahai Faith. Neil, with all respect for your opinions, 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, December 07, 1997 10:42 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <348A5931.F8130573@sprintmail.com>... >Kathy I. Morgan wrote: >> >> That seems a little ambiguous to me. Even better would be: >> The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the >> Bahai faith. > >Short and sweet works for me. The problem is neither is soc.religion.bahai.... The attempt is being made to discredit talk.religion.bahai from the very beginning within its own charter.... Soc.religion.bahai's charter contains no such disclaimer AT ALL! They regularly state they are not THE official Bahai newsgroup while acting like it and many take it as such.... Adding such a disclaimer to talk.religion.bahai has been solely the idea of those opposed to it from the very beginning.... I'm willing to compromise and permit a disclaimer but it must be counterbalanced fairly, republican style, if you will.... The whipping post disclaimer would do that I think nicely.... I like the image too.... It evokes the realities involved so 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:35 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Chris wrote in message <3yOzoSAHZci0Ewdz@baha.demon.co.uk>... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote >>None of you comment on the fact that the BCCA has his Bahai >>ID number, as well as the person who threatened me, and yet >>they have chosen in their imparitiality to remove me from their >>several mailing lists.... > >It is not necessary for the BCCA to have an ID number for someone to >post to the lists. It IS, however, necessary to have the ID number for >someone to be able to READ the posts. >found on news.groups. You might recall, Chris, that bahai@hotmail.com was criticized by you and a few others and THEN responded to the effect explaining why he posted under a pseudonym.... Clearly, he was receiving messages, not just blind-posting.... They have his ID #.... 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, December 07, 1997 10:28 AM To: Russ Allbery Subject: Holiday break & 3rd RFD 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? I don't want the RFD to expire and someone else attempt to post one along different lines.... >In news.groups on Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:10:28 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <3487d7be.3106558@news.wwa.com>... >>>>I see what you are referring to. This is from Bill Aten's daily UVV >>>posting: >>> >>>>Unless an exception is granted by the news.announce.newgroups >>>>moderator, proposals must begin their CFV within 60 days of their >>>>last RFD or a new RFD and discussion period will be required. >>> >>>I interpret this to mean that the 60-day rule applies to the time when you >>>must begin the CFV. The rule does not apply to an RFD. If the current >>>RFD expires, you just submit another one. Which is what you plan to >>>do anyway. >> >>I'm concerned though that another RFD for talk.religion.bahai >>might slip inbetween the cracks.... > >Check it out with Russ Allbery, then, to be sure that I have made >the right interpretation. 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, December 07, 1997 10:15 AM Subject: Re: Plan of action Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <348a697f.7008979@news.wwa.com>... >Check it out with Russ Allbery, then, to be sure that I have made >the right interpretation. Will do.... >That, I think, is part of the point. You can't keep this thing going >on forever. At some point, you have to come to closure on the >deal, and let the chips fall where they may. I agree. I just want to maneuver safely around this vacation hiatus.... 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, December 07, 1997 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai roger.borseth wrote in message ... > >That being the case then why include such a misleading statement in the >Charter and the call for discussion? If anyone were to look it would be >obvious that it is untrue. The traffic statement in the RFD is clearly dated from April 1, 1997 to October 20th, the posting of the first RFD. Traffic on arb prior to full discussion of the proposal on news.groups is highly relevant to demonstrating an enormous interest in an unmoderated news.group. After that date, though, the energies of most earlier participants, as one might expect, have gone into the formation of talk.religion.bahai. Whatever the figures may be after October 20th, they can't be used as a true gauge of interest any longer. The talk.religion.bahai proposal is not contingent upon current, or former for that matter, posting rates to arb, though the figures emphatically demonstrate a significantly high rate of interest and involvement: 513 different posters, with more than 1,200 different threads. The RFD makes clear that trb is not dependent on the fortunes of arb and both may go their own ways.... Why don't you and other Bahais salvage arb for yourselves? See what you can make of it instead of whining and criticizing.... 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, December 07, 1997 9:59 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 9:02 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3488643C.2E2A@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >The Human Rights Watch World Report 1998 (just released) contains the >following paragraph on the situation in Iran. The full text of the >report can be read at: https://www.hrw.org/research/worldreport.html > >"The Iranian government continued to tolerate or encourage violent >religious zealots known as Partisans of the Party of God (Ansar-e >Hezbollah) to assault and intimidate writers and intellectuals, disrupt >gatherings of those critical of government policies, and carry out raids >on the offices of independent magazines and newspapers. Baha'is and >evangelical Christians faced widespread persecution, including death >sentences against two Baha'is accused of spying for Israel and, since >1994, the unexplained murder of three Christian leaders. An official >council of clerics and jurists vetted candidates for public office for >their "piety," and the constitution restricted the presidency to a male >Shi'a Muslim, excluding not only all women but also the 20 percent of >the population that is Sunni Muslim or belongs to other religious >minorities." What of the human rights of Bahais in America, Europe, and indeed thoroughout the world? What of their rights to free speech and religious conscience? What about the rights of non-Bahais, Muslims and others, to state their opinions about the Bahai Faith without the censorship of soc.religion.bahai or some other quasi-Bahai propaganda mouthpiece interferring? The Bahai Faith cannot have it both ways.... If we want and ask the world to care about the oppressed in Iran, we Bahais need to stop the heretic trials here in the United States, including the ones on Usenet and private mailing lists.... I'm forwarding this message to the UHJ because I believe it goes to the heart of the issues dealing with the suppression of free speech by Bahais massively mounting a NO vote against talk.religion.bahai 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: Saturday, December 06, 1997 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Human Rights Watch (1998) on Iran Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3488643C.2E2A@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >The Human Rights Watch World Report 1998 (just released) contains the >following paragraph on the situation in Iran. The full text of the >report can be read at: https://www.hrw.org/research/worldreport.html > >"The Iranian government continued to tolerate or encourage violent >religious zealots known as Partisans of the Party of God (Ansar-e >Hezbollah) to assault and intimidate writers and intellectuals, disrupt >gatherings of those critical of government policies, and carry out raids >on the offices of independent magazines and newspapers. Baha'is and >evangelical Christians faced widespread persecution, including death >sentences against two Baha'is accused of spying for Israel and, since >1994, the unexplained murder of three Christian leaders. An official >council of clerics and jurists vetted candidates for public office for >their "piety," and the constitution restricted the presidency to a male >Shi'a Muslim, excluding not only all women but also the 20 percent of >the population that is Sunni Muslim or belongs to other religious >minorities." What of the human rights of Bahais in America, Europe, and indeed thoroughout the world? What of their rights to free speech and religious conscience? What about the rights of non-Bahais, Muslims and others, to state their opinions about the Bahai Faith without the censorship of soc.religion.bahai or some other quasi-Bahai propaganda mouthpiece interferring? The Bahai Faith cannot have it both ways.... If we want and ask the world to care about the oppressed in Iran, we Bahais need to stop the heretic trials here in the United States, including the ones on Usenet and private mailing lists.... I'm forwarding this message to the UHJ because I believe it goes to the heart of the issues dealing with the suppression of free speech by Bahais massively mounting a NO vote against talk.religion.bahai 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: Saturday, December 06, 1997 8:51 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Steve Mintner wrote in message <669glc$d3q@drn.zippo.com>... >>>>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< > >The above two paragraphs are unnecessary to the charter. They have nothing to >do with the functioning or purpose of the newsgroup. I wish everyone felt that way.... The Bahai conduct thing was the result of a month or more insistence by Bahais, the latter the result of their ignoring one should not vote NO depriving others of a place to express their consciences.... I'll compromise if they will.... >>>used as "whipping posts," by or against Baha'is or non-Baha'is, >>>after the passing of the RFD. > >I don't really think this last sentence is necessary. The statement is already >made in other terms (therefore redundant), and it comes across as a very crude >way of making a point. Was this approved of by all the co-proponents? (active >at the time of alteration, of course) I wish it weren't.... Crude realities in this world.... We're still consulting on it and it's open for debate. Of course, it's intended by me to counterbalance the desire of others for a "disclaimer" against trb, which soc.religion.bahai does not have in its own charter but some Bahais want in trb's.... If they drop the redundant "conduct" claim and the disclaimer, I'd be happy if they'd like to remove the whipping post from the public square.... > > >That's all I have for now. Good luck. > >Steve Mintner 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: Saturday, December 06, 1997 8:31 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34886C22.FB1@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >> >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <664h5e$c7r@news1.zippo.com>... >> >> . . . .... 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. >> > >The individual(s) posting under the address of "bahai@hotmail.com" may >also be the same one (group) that posted numerous other messages under >a couple of other "hotmail.com" addresses (including apparently >masquerading on a.r.b. as someone else). Or I think what is much more likely is that he's attempted to hide the fact that he's a Bahai by posting several idiotic messages on other things.... The fact remains he HAD TO GIVE HIS BAHAI ID NUMBER in order for the BCCA to subscribe him to its lists.... In any event, the tactic of >the anonymous individual(s) so doing seems to be the same: provocation >and stiring up fruitless controversy. It's not "fruitless controversy." It's born exactly the fruit he wanted. He blackballed and smeared me and got me kicked off the BCCA lists which calls into question the motives of the BCCA itself and whether or not they or someone on their "committee" is behind bahai@hotmail.com. To the extent that the BCCA is part of the Bahai administration, it also calls into question whether or the Bahai institutions back such underhanded intrigue and may have participated in his demonizing of me.... I am sorry to learn that such >unBaha'i-like activity was directed at you. We should all, IMHO, work >together to observe netiquette and even more to put Baha'i teachings in >to practice in our net behavior. But that is not what the BCCA has done. I immediately wrote them a message about the activities of bahai@hotmail.com and they wrote me a message back ignoring his despicable conduct and blaming ME for it. I posted there message along with the woman's threatening message to me to Bahai-Discuss and news.groups. Instead of doing anything to either one of them, they waited EIGHT weeks and then precisely when predominant opinion seemed to be going in favor of trb removed me from their mailing lists and posted a message to all of them denouncing me and claiming they weren't interferring in the trb vote but.... > >What I've observed about anonymous addresses on several newsgroups: >they can be innocently and honestly used, but they also may serve as >cover for many kinds of mischief and wasting of bandwidth that people >would not do under their own names and real E-mail addresses. In this case, all of which has been supported by the BCCA and ergo by Bahai institutions in so far as they amount to one.... I'm forwarding this message too to the UHJ since it summarizes again the misconduct and abuse of power I believe the BCCA has committed, and I hope they are investigating and consulting on. > >DZO 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, December 06, 1997 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34886C22.FB1@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >> >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <664h5e$c7r@news1.zippo.com>... >> >> . . . .... 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. >> > >The individual(s) posting under the address of "bahai@hotmail.com" may >also be the same one (group) that posted numerous other messages under >a couple of other "hotmail.com" addresses (including apparently >masquerading on a.r.b. as someone else). Or I think what is much more likely is that he's attempted to hide the fact that he's a Bahai by posting several idiotic messages on other things.... The fact remains he HAD TO GIVE HIS BAHAI ID NUMBER in order for the BCCA to subscribe him to its lists.... In any event, the tactic of >the anonymous individual(s) so doing seems to be the same: provocation >and stiring up fruitless controversy. It's not "fruitless controversy." It's born exactly the fruit he wanted. He blackballed and smeared me and got me kicked off the BCCA lists which calls into question the motives of the BCCA itself and whether or not they or someone on their "committee" is behind bahai@hotmail.com. To the extent that the BCCA is part of the Bahai administration, it also calls into question whether or the Bahai institutions back such underhanded intrigue and may have participated in his demonizing of me.... I am sorry to learn that such >unBaha'i-like activity was directed at you. We should all, IMHO, work >together to observe netiquette and even more to put Baha'i teachings in >to practice in our net behavior. But that is not what the BCCA has done. I immediately wrote them a message about the activities of bahai@hotmail.com and they wrote me a message back ignoring his despicable conduct and blaming ME for it. I posted there message along with the woman's threatening message to me to Bahai-Discuss and news.groups. Instead of doing anything to either one of them, they waited EIGHT weeks and then precisely when predominant opinion seemed to be going in favor of trb removed me from their mailing lists and posted a message to all of them denouncing me and claiming they weren't interferring in the trb vote but.... > >What I've observed about anonymous addresses on several newsgroups: >they can be innocently and honestly used, but they also may serve as >cover for many kinds of mischief and wasting of bandwidth that people >would not do under their own names and real E-mail addresses. In this case, all of which has been supported by the BCCA and ergo by Bahai institutions in so far as they amount to one.... I'm forwarding this message too to the UHJ since it summarizes again the misconduct and abuse of power I believe the BCCA has committed, and I hope they are investigating and consulting on. > >DZO 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, December 06, 1997 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Plan of action Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <3487d7be.3106558@news.wwa.com>... >>I see what you are referring to. This is from Bill Aten's daily UVV >posting: > >>Unless an exception is granted by the news.announce.newgroups >>moderator, proposals must begin their CFV within 60 days of their >>last RFD or a new RFD and discussion period will be required. > >I interpret this to mean that the 60-day rule applies to the time when you >must begin the CFV. The rule does not apply to an RFD. If the current >RFD expires, you just submit another one. Which is what you plan to >do anyway. I'm concerned though that another RFD for talk.religion.bahai might slip inbetween the cracks.... > >I see no problem with submitting the 2nd RFD _before_ tale goes >on vacation on the assumption that it will not be posted until _after_ >the holiday break. A disadvantage might be that, if you get a bright >idea between December 20 and January 5, you won't be able to >change the RFD you submitted. I therefore suggest that you discuss >this with your co-proponents and make the best decision you can >as to whether or not there might be further changes in the RFD. We could though always post a 4th RFD too if a really new idea comes along. At this point, it seems unlikely. Including two and half months of discussion on alt.religion.bahai about the RFD, there's now been over four months spent on it.... Thanks. > >Henrietta > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 7:59 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34887D9E.A0B3C0BE@ford.com>... >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, 11 messages per day for 70 days. > >Which had to do less with Baha'i theological matters and a great deal >more to do with the controversy surrounding the last vote. I'd feel >better if this sentence was excluded. I see this as a historical statement necessary to preserve perspective.... The controversy was grounded in Bahai theological, or misperceived theological, matters.... Best not to get back into all of that.... >> >An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be >> >considered by all: >(snip) > >No commentary which will be relevant only during the vote for a group >should be in the charter (use the rationale if you feel you have to have >something in the RFD document). And I'd prefer that you replace the >posting from Russ with a pointer to the UHJ statement on Chris' web >site. Okay, we'll move it for you. Ginger's suggested the Procedure section. Is that acceptable? The idea of a pointer in the RFD has been discussed a lot. Many felt I think that it really doesn't make belong in the RFD and a point will soon become obsolete. The UHJ statement does not evince an understanding of Usenet interest polling.... And this is another reason why I've written to them asking them to clarify their statement and instruct Bahais not to launch another massive NO vote. > >I suggest you replace this: >> >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. > >With this: > 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. I like your basic idea. Short and simple and to the point. I've tried this approach too in the past but many would not settle for it so this paragraph has grown and grown and grown (groan).... Roger Reini has followed all this discussion for so long that if it meets his approval I'd really like to just leave it alone and get the ball rolling.... I think that would be best for Usenet and news.groups too.... > >I don't think the rest of the commentary is necessary. The charter >already states: >> >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. > >Posters adhering to these reminders of treating each others like adults >will not be posting messages in the nature of "whipping posts". The problem is so few Bahais treat others like adults!!!! Heresy hunting and burning people at the stake is THE major Bahai pastime.... Seriously, I've compromised by letting in the statements about "Bahai conduct" and the "disclaimer," which incidentally soc.religion.bahai does NOT have in its charter, I ask others to compromise and allow me my disclaimer against Bahai whipping posts.... Having suffered on so many of them.... >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) >a backup moderator of 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, December 06, 1997 7:43 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Roger Reini wrote in message <348b4298.54016509@news.zippo.com>... >The draft looks fine to me. Thanks, Roger. I've tried to compromise too.... You know there are things in it I don't like, but I've tried to be fair and allow others' opinions in as well while preserving all points of view.... In an imperfect world, what else can we do? 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, December 06, 1997 7:40 AM Subject: Re: 3rd RFD Rough Draft Ginger Glaser wrote in message <34886D6C.60BB@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >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< >> > >I would prefer to see this in another section -remember the charter will >live for years and would seem kind of odd to have voting interpretations >in it. Put it in the procedure section, or if that isn't allowed (I >don't have the RFD guidlines handy) put in under rationalle - or >somewhere that won't be hangin around forever. The goal should be that >newbies will view this as just another newsgroup and not have the >controversy surrounding its inception be thrown at them. The procedure section makes sense more than the rationale to me.... Sure, let's put Russ Allbery's passage there.... > >Other than that - looks good. Thanks. > >Ginger ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 7:34 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Rick Schaut wrote in message <669ruh$nde@news.microsoft.com>... >Before I get into any of this, I should point out that the _sole_ reason I'm >going to say what I'm about to say is because Fred has brought these issues >up himself. I have no desire to bring shame on anyone, but I have a duty to >ensure that the facts are presented accurately. You mean as you see them from YOUR point of view.... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <669bm8$7m6@news1.zippo.com>... >>Bahai@hotmail.com put in his subject line: "From Frederick Glaysher" >>or "From Frederick Glayer" [sic]. Many initially took the messages as >>posted by me, as was his intention.... > >I don't believe that was his intent, nor do I find any credible evidence to >suggest that it was. I have all of the messages posted to Bahai-Discuss on trb for a two month period on my hard drive. Would you like me to zip them up and forward them to you? See Roger Reini's honest acknowledgement in this thread.... > >>None of you comment on the fact that the BCCA has his Bahai >>ID number, as well as the person who threatened me, and yet >>they have chosen in their imparitiality to remove me from their >>several mailing lists.... > >First, Fred, you keep referring to the BCCA Coordinating Committee as the >BCCA. They are not the same thing. I'm a member of the BCCA, as is any >other Baha'i who subscribes to a BCCA sponsored e-mail list. I am _not_ a >member of the BCCA-CC. Its members are elected from the full membership of >the BCCA, and one of their responsibilities is to enforce the rules of BCCA >sponsored e-mail lists. Rules which you have violated by your own >admission. Two or three times, EIGHT weeks before they cynically removed me from the mailing lists, posting an equally cynical message to every one of them claiming they didn't want to interfer with the vote on trb but..... > >Secondly, the Coordinating Committee contacted you about this at least as >early as last September (you sent a message to one of the BCCA sponsored >lists which quoted the text of a message from the Coordinating Committee >explaining this to you), yet you continued to violate those rules for at >least another month. That's false.... What I quoted was their message failing to respond to my request that they intervene with the woman threatening me, threats that still worry my wife more three months later for the safety of our family.... Their message was full of accusation against me while ignoring my request that they do something about the abuse of the Usenet interest polling system.... Your approach is the usual one for so many Bahais, as for the BCCA.... DEMONIZE the individual.... > >Lastly, I haven't mentioned anything about the behavior of other Baha'is >because it's irrelevant to both talk.religion.bahai and your removal from >BCCA sponsored e-mail lists. There is no evidence that anyone else has >broken the rules for these lists. False. Bahai@hotmail.com REPOSTED FOUR messages of mine, more, I believe, than I ever reposted from Bahai-disucss to news.groups and yet he remains a Bahai in "good" standing on the BCCA's list.... As does the woman who threatened me.... I suppose it was all for Baha'u'llah.... Their behavior might well be wrong from a >broader Baha'i point of view, but that doesn't constitute a specific >violation of BCCA rules. See above. > >>His tactics seem identical to those >>referred to by Professor Cole. Would any of you like to comment >>on his observations on Bahais' regard for freedom of speech >>and religious conscience? > >I think the only comment I shall make is that "observation" is not a word >I'd use to describe Dr. Cole's statements as you've posted them. The word >"observation" implies statements of fact. Dr. Cole's remarks are much more >opinion than they are facts. Everything you have said here is merely your own opinion too though you seem to want to present them as "fact." > >Now, I'm certainly willing to discuss what I think of Dr. Cole's opinions, >but news.groups is not the place. I believe it is the right place because the same dishonest tactics and intrigue that Cole discusses in the four messages I've titled "To UHJ" are by and large the selfsame ones used by Bahais here on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai for months and months and months.... > >>It seems inescapable to me that very >>similar approaches have been and are being used by some >>Bahais during this discussion for talk.religion.bahai.... > >I'm not quite sure how a conclusion that isn't adequately supported by the >facts can be considered "inescapable". Perhaps, some day, I'll understand. It's evident Mr. Schaut that you have no sincere interest in understanding other people's opinions; you have all the facts.... and want all the control over what can and can not be said.... like most Bahais.... > > >Rick Schaut >The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views >and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. > 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, December 06, 1997 7:14 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Roger Reini wrote in message <348a3df0.52824282@news.zippo.com>... >On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:55:47 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >[snipped for space] > >>Bahai@hotmail.com put in his subject line: "From Frederick Glaysher" >>or "From Frederick Glayer" [sic]. Many initially took the messages as >>posted by me, as was his intention.... > >Yes, that's true. At the same time, anyone familiar with normal >Internet addressing would have seen that you were not the one who had >reposted those items. One would think so and yet many on bahai-discuss immediately pounced on me and began to tear me to shreds.... To your credit, only you and Chris Manvell had enough ethical sense left to distinguish truth from blatant falsehood and intrigue.... > >On to other items... > >>None of you comment on the fact that the BCCA has his Bahai >>ID number, as well as the person who threatened me, and yet >>they have chosen in their imparitiality to remove me from their >>several mailing lists.... His tactics seem identical to those >>referred to by Professor Cole. Would any of you like to comment >>on his observations on Bahais' regard for freedom of speech >>and religious conscience? It seems inescapable to me that very >>similar approaches have been and are being used by some >>Bahais during this discussion for talk.religion.bahai.... > >As I do not know the specific reasons for your removal from the BCCA >mailing lists, I cannot comment on this. However, I can say that I >have not seen any posts from "bahai@hotmail.com" on those lists >recently. I do not know if he/she is still a subscriber to them. Only my own direct observation through having my rights restored to having access to the private Bahai mailing lists would be sufficient for me to believe anything in regard to said lists and posters thereon.... > >As for Prof. Cole's observations, I do not wish to comment. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 6:50 AM To: Jean B. Hunter Subject: Re: To Jean in Ithaca Please do not email me directly again. 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: Jean B. Hunter To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 11:24 PM Subject: Re: To Jean in Ithaca >Hi Fred -- > >The reply feature isn't working for you since the reply-to address >in the header is usually set to a spam-killing "pitbull.cornell.edu". > >Take out the "pitbull." and it should work fine. The real >address is jbh5@cornell.edu -- try it and it ought to work. > >If you send me back a copy of my message to you, I will consider >posting it to a.r.b and n.g. Unfortunately I did not keep a >copy of it for myself when I sent it to you several days ago. >(also I sent it from my other computer) >If this was the message urging you to keep a cool head and try to >act like Abdu'l-Baha, I don't think I need to post it to the >lists. It's really a repeat of stuff that your true friends have >been telling you all along, so I didn't want to bore people >with it again. > >With best regards, >Jean in Ithaca > >In article <663kpd$qjc@news2.zippo.com>, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> Despite my several attempts to answer your email privately, >> your server or address is not working.... >> >> Please post your message to news.groups so that everyone >> might have the benefit of your consultation. There's no reason >> to merely lurk.... Be of good courage! >> >> -- >> 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 3:39 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole Cc: Susan Maneck Subject: Fw: Dissembling I don't expect you to do anything about this or agree with me. I'm forwarding this message to you just so that someone else on h-bahai knows.... I shall not repost it anywhere nor revise it in what Robert Frost called "less better words." I assume Susan's worried about the "loving" institutions cracking down on h-bahai too.... I shan't rock the boat beyond this feeble sigh.... 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: Susan Maneck To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Negar Mottahedeh) Cc: mod-hb@umich.edu Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 11:37 AM Subject: Re: Dissembling >Dear Fred, > >Negar and I have discussed your proposed posting to H-Bahai. We both >agree it is rather too polemical for an academic forum. If you would >like tone down its emotional content and focus on the issues >involved you are welcome to resubmit. You do have an important point >here to make, but it needs to be done without attacking. > >Susan Maneck > > >> >> Susan Maneck writes: >> >> >That is a real danger and one which I allude to in my article. In a recent >> >letter I wrote to the Universal House of Justice I suggested that some of >> >the tensions which have developed between academics and the administration >> >have their roots in the Western emphasis on truth at all cost vs. the >> >eastern emphasis on "wisdom." >> >> There's no "wisdom" in deceit, lies, fabrications, distortions, >> suppression, tyranny, blackballing, intrigue, ignominy, >> skullduggery.... The euphemistic twisting of "wisdom" drains >> all proper meaning from the word.... >> >> >I asked how such principles can be reconciled >> >without sacrificing integrity. It will be interesting to hear their >> >response. >> >> Or whether it will be sophistry.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 3:11 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu Subject: Re: Dissembling Cooperation? It's just you run h-bahai, and, if that's the way you want it, I have no recourse.... I don't see the small world of h-bahai as anything worth fighting over.... In my opinion, my message was stated just fine.... I understand you have to worry about the censors.... 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: Susan Maneck To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Dissembling >Thank you for your cooperation. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 2:47 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu Subject: Re: Dissembling I recall Robert Frost: Surely you don't want me to say it in less better words.... That's your prerogative.... 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: Susan Maneck To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Negar Mottahedeh) Cc: mod-hb@umich.edu Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 11:37 AM Subject: Re: Dissembling >Dear Fred, > >Negar and I have discussed your proposed posting to H-Bahai. We both >agree it is rather too polemical for an academic forum. If you would >like tone down its emotional content and focus on the issues >involved you are welcome to resubmit. You do have an important point >here to make, but it needs to be done without attacking. > >Susan Maneck > > >> >> Susan Maneck writes: >> >> >That is a real danger and one which I allude to in my article. In a recent >> >letter I wrote to the Universal House of Justice I suggested that some of >> >the tensions which have developed between academics and the administration >> >have their roots in the Western emphasis on truth at all cost vs. the >> >eastern emphasis on "wisdom." >> >> There's no "wisdom" in deceit, lies, fabrications, distortions, >> suppression, tyranny, blackballing, intrigue, ignominy, >> skullduggery.... The euphemistic twisting of "wisdom" drains >> all proper meaning from the word.... >> >> >I asked how such principles can be reconciled >> >without sacrificing integrity. It will be interesting to hear their >> >response. >> >> Or whether it will be sophistry.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:25 PM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: 3rd RFD Rough Draft THIS IS ONLY A ROUGH DRAFT OF THE 3RD RFD FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCLUDE CONSULTATION ON IT UP TO NOW. COULD WE REACH AGREEMENT ON IT BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, AND POST IT BEFORE DAVID LAWERENCE GOES OFF ON, I SURE, A MUCH NEEDED VACATION? THE CFV COULD THEN BE POSTED IN EARLY JANAUARY. > 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 > > > -- 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 1:25 PM Subject: 3rd RFD Rough Draft THIS IS ONLY A ROUGH DRAFT OF THE 3RD RFD FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCLUDE CONSULTATION ON IT UP TO NOW. COULD WE REACH AGREEMENT ON IT BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, AND POST IT BEFORE DAVID LAWERENCE GOES OFF ON, I SURE, A MUCH NEEDED VACATION? THE CFV COULD THEN BE POSTED IN EARLY JANAUARY. > 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 > > > -- 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 1:18 PM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Elizabeth Holden Michael, I'm quite open to your suggestion of her as a proponent. Can you ask her to post a few things to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai so that people get a sense of who she is and what she thinks? I need her address too for the 3rd RFD. I'm post right now a rough draft of it to 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, December 05, 1997 1:15 PM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 12:55 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers)) Chris wrote in message ... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Roger Reini > wrote >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>> 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. >> >>[snip] >> >>As I recall, the individual in question who was using >>"bahai@hotmail.com" was not masquerading as you; rather, he/she had >>copied posts you had made several months ago. Personally, I feel that >>this inflamed the discussions then taking place (and still taking >>place), and I don't believe he/she should have reposted them. >> >>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > >I agree with Roger here. The individual concerned definitely was NOT >masquarading as Fred but posted several messages that Fred had posted to >ARB earlier in the year. While I did not condone what Fred was posting, >it is worth making two points here. First that the individual concerned >was very obviously trying to stir up trouble against a specific >individual (whether justified or not is neither here not there) and, >second, that they ignored the subsequent message that Fred sent >qualifying what he had originally posted. Bahai@hotmail.com put in his subject line: "From Frederick Glaysher" or "From Frederick Glayer" [sic]. Many initially took the messages as posted by me, as was his intention.... None of you comment on the fact that the BCCA has his Bahai ID number, as well as the person who threatened me, and yet they have chosen in their imparitiality to remove me from their several mailing lists.... His tactics seem identical to those referred to by Professor Cole. Would any of you like to comment on his observations on Bahais' regard for freedom of speech and religious conscience? It seems inescapable to me that very similar approaches have been and are being used by some Bahais during this discussion for talk.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: 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: Thursday, December 04, 1997 3:23 PM Subject: Re: To UHJ (FWD: annonymous remailers) Rick Schaut wrote in message <666rb8$6ru@news.microsoft.com>... > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <664h5e$c7r@news1.zippo.com>... >>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. > > >Two points: > >1) There simply is no evidence, here, to support the claim that anyone has >masqueraded as Mr. Glaysher in any way form or shape. It would be nice to >see one of these accusations backed up by specific evidence. I have all of his messages on my hard drive and would be happy to post all of them on news.groups if everyone promises not to beat up on me if I do.... Chris Manvell and Roger Reini both immediately posted protests on Bahai-Discuss that bahai@hotmail.com was obviously trying to inflame opinion against me and trb.... If so moved, they might corroborate the fact. > >2) I started reading news.groups primarily because someone pointed out to me >that some of my private messages were being posted to news.groups without my >permission. The person who posted those messages was none other than Mr. >Glaysher himself. In particular, MessageID ><01bcd19a$73838860$822ab3c7@glaysher> (which can be found on Deja News) is >one such instance. I reposted only a few messages from Bahai-Discuss to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai so that others might see some evidence of what was actually going on there.... I don't specifically recall reposting yours but it's possible, given the general tenor of most of your messages.... I've attempted to locate it using dejanews.com with the above ID # to no avail. Why don't you repost my message in full here. It won't bother me.... I'm not at all sure the message you refer to wasn't posted by you on alt.religion.bahai, where the "badi" thread was long discussed.... >Rick Schaut >The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views >and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. Are you defending bahai@hotmail.com? What do you think of his tactics? Is it kind of consultation Bahais should engage in? Do you approve of the fanatical practices that Dr. Cole refers to in his message? 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: Thursday, December 04, 1997 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Plan of action -- Kate Wrightson wrote in message <6641rk$i82$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu>... > >I would advise against submitting an RFD just before the holiday hiatus. >You may lose a significant number of votes from people at *.edu sites who >do not have access to their accounts over the holidays, or from people >who are on vacation and not checking their non-*.edu accounts. I'm not thinking of submitting the CFV until maybe in January.... Only the 3rd RFD around the Dec. 17th so that the 60 day time limit does not expire. Once the 3rd RFD is in, there would be an additional 60 period in which to discuss it before the CFV. Does that make sense? I see it as a way to avoid the holiday downtime and allow passions to perhaps further cool.... > >Frankly, I don't want this whole RFD to show up again in six months >because it was submitted for a vote at the wrong time. Send it in >January. Well, I hate the idea of having to submit the same proposal again in six months.... That's why I'm hoping Bahais will cool off and not vote NO, to avoid wasting everyone else's time on news.groups.... But if they do vote it down, I can't accept censorship.... I'll have to resubmit it in six months.... I feel it's my duty to myself and others who have indeed been, or will be, suppressed.... For me to walk away from this fight would be cowardly and shameful, though nice not to have to waste 2 to 4 hours a day on it, almost every day now for a year.... I refuse to allow them to wear me down.... >-- >________________________________________________________________________ >kate@rigel.econ.uga.edu kate wrightson blaze.cba.uga.edu/~kate 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 10:18 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote in message <3486CAA3.EF9@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> I did appeal to Tale [David Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroups, instrumental in the creation of new newsgroups] after the last massive NO vote was announced >> on March 27, 1997.... I don't blame him, really, but, for the record, >> nothing was done though the statistics were appalling to many >> observers.... >> >> What are those "in a number of ways" alternatives? >> >Appeal again - a second fiasco might be viewed differently. Well, I did email him, the group-mentors, and the UVV for advice early on because the storm was already starting on private Bahai lists a month before the 1st RFD on Oct. 20th was posted.... He, or maybe it was Jonathan Grobe, advised me to subscribe to the lists and answer people's concerns. I did and have but the results has been some Bahais, bahai@hotmail.com, etc., basically framed me and the BCCA backed THEM and threw me off the lists.... This is why I've appealed to the Bahai Universal House of Justice, because I fully expect another massive NO vote. They're the only ones who can stop it. For understandable reasons, most non-Bahais know nothing about the history of many Bahais in actual practice on freedom of speech and tend to think rational explanation and education is going to persuade them to observe the usual conventions for Usenet voting, but it just isn't so.... Please see Professor Juan Cole's recent messages on private Bahai lists that I've reposted on news.groups with his permission for more thorough historical background on these issues in the Bahai Faith. Or put a >group in one of the new heirarchies that don't depend on the fickleness >of the general population for deciding when to form groups. That would be to admit defeat again by accepting a lower order hierarchy of obscurity which is precisely what the fundamentalists want.... Or try to >reform the Big 8 so that IT doesn't have that hang up. I am leaning >towards that anyway, but feel I am totally unqualified to push such an >issue. I've discussed and explored and followed Usenet reformation for a year now. Technically, it's all too complicated for me and is best left in the hands of David Lawrence and other capable and informed people. If it ever comes, it won't be in time for this interest poll. So again I can only appeal to the Universal House of Justice to ask Bahais not to subvert Usenet and further waste the time of the many talented people, David Lawrence and others, who volunteer to make newsgroup creation and communication possible around the world. I'm forwarding this message too to the UHJ in the hope that it will help them understand the severity of the situation.... > >Ginger Thanks, 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:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:52 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Dissembling Susan Maneck writes: >That is a real danger and one which I allude to in my article. In a recent >letter I wrote to the Universal House of Justice I suggested that some of >the tensions which have developed between academics and the administration >have their roots in the Western emphasis on truth at all cost vs. the >eastern emphasis on "wisdom." There's no "wisdom" in deceit, lies, fabrications, distortions, suppression, tyranny, blackballing, intrigue, ignominy, skullduggery.... The euphemistic twisting of "wisdom" drains all proper meaning from the word.... >I asked how such principles can be reconciled >without sacrificing integrity. It will be interesting to hear their >response. Or whether it will be sophistry.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:35 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Dissembling "Bijan/Farnaz Ma'sumian" >Subject: Re: Dissembling > > >Frederick asked: > >>>>Are there really no other passages [regarding Wisdom/Hikmat]? > >Here are a few more passages from Baha'u'llah regarding the use of Hikmat >(Wisdom): I'm more interested in "taqiyyih." I feel that's the more prevalant influence on Bahai thinking and practice for some.... Its moral tenor.... Susan Maneck mentions in her paper that Shiites commit taqiyyih with Sunnis. Does it work in reverse? That is, is there a Sunni form of taqiyyih? Or a universal sense of it for Muslims of any background, with any believer or non-believer? In defense of Islam, is anything permissible? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:16 AM To: jsgreen@umich.edu Subject: Subscription to talisman Thank you for recently resubscribing me to talisman. One small problem has developed. I use two email accounts, one strictly for mailing lists, the other more broadly. I've been subscribe inadvertently to the wrong one. Please change my subscription address to fglaysh@hotmail.com Thanks again. 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: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 8:28 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 8:08 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote in message <3486df30.2042547@news.zippo.com>... >What I meant was that he shouldn't be TRYING to do something about the >PEOPLE, but about their opinions. This would not include attacking, >demeaning or complaining about them. If their opinions cannot be >swayed, then there are other paths that can be pursued, if enough >non-Baha'i with the tools of Usenet can be persuaded. What do you mean by the "tools of Usenet"? I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on that.... It still doesn't >attack the people with whom there were disagreements. Nothing is >gained by attacking such people at any point. Disagreeing, sure, >arguing, sometimes certainly, but attacking over Usenet - ridiculous. > >Now, since you seem to be one of the few Baha'i willing to brave these >waters with your concerns - what ones can I try to help you with? I am >afraid unless you have a terriffic and as yet unheard idea on the >name, it really isn't going to be negotiable. > >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, December 03, 1997 5:33 PM To: Chris Stone Subject: Re: Plan of action Thanks, Chris, for responding. The situation is such with the more fundamentalist Bahais that many are agreed the more time we can give them to "educate" themselves on Usenet the better. It's a scam though.... Everyone knows they already know they shouldn't vote against trb. I've appealed to the highest Bahai institution, the Universal House of Justice, to get involved and slap 'em aside the head. No telling how that's going to go.... Appreciate the advice.... How's Russia? Must be great over there.... Exciting times, if nothing else. I lived in Japan for a year and a half, China for five weeks.... Miss 'em both.... 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, December 03, 1997 5:25 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers I have no choice but to ask you to let me repost this one too.... Why don't you give me carte blanche for piercing pieces like these.... People on the newsgroups usually are hearing only the fanatics as they beat me into the ground.... I've already forwarded to the UHJ and news.groups the earlier installment. Let me just clarify my previous post to you by saying I'm not convinced the UHJ supports the fanatics.... And hope and look to them for better.... Though I am fraught with worries and misgivings.... 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: Rhonda Wittorf ; fdbetts@mindspring.com ; belove@sover.net Cc: irfan1@umich.edu ; talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers > >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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:58 PM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:38 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Re: forward too to UHJ? -----Original Message----- From: Juan R. I. Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 12:54 PM Subject: Re: forward too to UHJ? >Dear Frederick: > >About 20 people have almost certainly already forwarded the message to the >authorities. Yes, but not the way I will.... With everyone on news.groups watching.... > >They are going to declare you a covenant breaker eventually, you know, if >they don't just drop you off the rolls the way they did McKenny. You are >among the persons whom an anonymous remailer would benefi The idea has occurred to me once or twice.... I don't consider myself one.... But, if the UHJ does, then they'll have to do it in public and reveal in equivocal terms to me and others what the Bahai faith has truly become.... > >cheers Juan > > > >>May I also simultaneously, in public, forward your remailer >>message to the UHJ as evidence of the widening perception >>in cyberspace of Bahai suppression of conscience and >>invite them again to enjoin upon Bahais not to vote NO? >> >> >>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, December 03, 1997 11:47 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Plan of action Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34857B04.35DEC95A@ford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> 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. > >You're cutting it a little tight, since na.newgroups will be closed for >the holiday 12/20/97-1/5/98. If it takes you until 12/17 to get the >3rd RFD to tale, you may as well wait until 1/5. Ohhhh yes, I remember that happening last year too! Well, probably the 5th would be all right. It would allow more time for people to relax and educate.... >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) >a backup moderator of 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, December 03, 1997 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Plan of action Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34857B04.35DEC95A@ford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> 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. > >You're cutting it a little tight, since na.newgroups will be closed for >the holiday 12/20/97-1/5/98. If it takes you until 12/17 to get the >3rd RFD to tale, you may as well wait until 1/5. Ohhhh yes, I remember that happening last year too! Well, probably the 5th would be all right. It would allow more time for people to relax and educate.... >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) >a backup moderator of 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:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 11:42 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Dissembling >From: "Susan Maneck" >>Are there really no other passages? And yet your article, which I've now >>read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on >>especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i >>Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... > >What my article suggests is that *in practice* Baha'is tended to observe >*hikmat* almost identically to the way Muslims observed *taqiyyih.* At >times they would even explicitly deny being Baha'is. What they would not do >is deny who Baha'u'llah was. I'm more interested in "taqiyyih" becoming a broadly accepted way of conduct among Bahais.... What Marshall Hodgson states, whom you cite, as a "pattern of gradation and concealment of knowledge." Such patterns erode integrity and other virtues.... They lead to all manner of abuse, the end justifying the means.... > >To my statement: > >>>While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >>>situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at other >>>times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which ought >>>to typify all of our human interactions at all times. > >Fred says: > >>A change of subject, in my opinion.... > >Or maybe an attempt to apply the principle to the present. :-) Not to my mind.... Or we might perhaps apply them in different ways.... > >Susan Maneck >Berry College 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:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 11:31 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Dissembling 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: Negar Mottahedeh To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 9:07 AM Subject: Dissembling >From: "Susan Maneck" >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:16:10 EST >Subject: Re: Dissembling > > >Fred asks regarding the passage I cited from Gleanings: > >>Is THIS the only passage in the Bahai writings that uses the word "taqiyyih"? > >Probably not, but it is the one I know off the top of my head. > >>Are there really no other passages? And yet your article, which I've now >>read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on >>especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i >>Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... > >What my article suggests is that *in practice* Baha'is tended to observe >*hikmat* almost identically to the way Muslims observed *taqiyyih.* At >times they would even explicitly deny being Baha'is. What they would not do >is deny who Baha'u'llah was. > >To my statement: > >>>While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >>>situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at other >>>times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which ought >>>to typify all of our human interactions at all times. > >Fred says: > >>A change of subject, in my opinion.... > >Or maybe an attempt to apply the principle to the present. :-) > >Susan Maneck >Berry College > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 9:04 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell Subject: 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? -- 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, December 03, 1997 9:04 AM Subject: 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? -- 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, December 03, 1997 8:54 AM Subject: To Jean in Ithaca Despite my several attempts to answer your email privately, your server or address is not working.... Please post your message to news.groups so that everyone might have the benefit of your consultation. There's no reason to merely lurk.... Be of good courage! -- 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, December 03, 1997 8:37 AM To: Keith Tookey Subject: Re: Banned from BCCA lists (was Re: Mark ...) I'm sorry it's taken me quite a while to respond to you. Numerous things have intervened.... In the meantime, things have moved on, and I no longer think it would be wise to forward copies of my messages to anyone at this time until I hear from the UHJ.... I hope you understand. It's become a highly volatile atmosphere.... Thanks, though.... 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: Keith Tookey Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Banned from BCCA lists (was Re: Mark ...) >In article <653uum$iq1@news2.zippo.com> you write: >They have my permission to state publicly their reasons as long as >they post, in full, the three messages I emailed them and their >responses to me. I have all of them in one ascii file and would be >happy to forward them to anyone interested. I also have the 344 >messages post to Bahai-Discuss during the roughly eight weeks >that I was on it for anyone to compare to my messages. Linger >on that number. Nothing even remotely approaching 344 messages >was crossposted to news.groups during the same time period. > >OK Fred, I'll bite. I would rather not engage in speculation >that can be avoided. Forward to me your file please. >(I want to see through me own eyes and not through the eyes of another.) :) > >>Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34749D36.520E@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >>>I'm not sure this thread belongs on news.groups anymore, so I've set >>>follow-ups ... >>> >>>I've also modified the heading because the BCCA does not "belong" in any >>>sense to Mark Towfiq or any other individual. Also, I don't think it >>>is either fair or accurate to portray the BCCA's recent action in >>>banning Frederick from its lists as in any way motovated by "revenge." >>> >>>T Hodges wrote: >>>> I expect the BCCA will not publicly say why they did this unless Fred >>>> directly asks them. Otherwise they would violate his privacy. >> >>They have my permission to state publicly their reasons as long as >>they post, in full, the three messages I emailed them and their >>responses to me. I have all of them in one ascii file and would be >>happy to forward them to anyone interested. I also have the 344 >>messages post to Bahai-Discuss during the roughly eight weeks >>that I was on it for anyone to compare to my messages. Linger >>on that number. Nothing even remotely approaching 344 messages >>was crossposted to news.groups during the same time period. >> >>> >>>This is as it should be. I would not want to speculate as to the >>>specific reasons, but can guess as to the kinds of issues the BCCA >>>might have had to consider in a case like this. There would seem to >>>be two main considerations: >>> >>>1. The rights of the members of a private list whose messages might >>>be distributed publically without their consent (as you imply at the >>>end of your posting). Should the rights of individuals to speak freely >>>(and respectfully) about issues of faith of concern to them be >>>compromised by the knowledge that anything they ask or opine might be >>>broadcast and archived on a public forum? >> >>The BCCA chose to bring down its axe more than EIGHT weeks after >>my posting a couple of messages to news.groups. Was it a coincidence >>that at that moment many people were changing their minds about voting >>NO? I hardly think so.... >> >>> >>>2. The record of behavior of the individual in question, including, >>>but not necessarily limited to compliance with guidelines of the >>>list(s) involved (e.g., reposting of other private mail, behavior on >>>other non-BCCA fora). >> >>There's nothing I ever posted to Bahai-Discuss that justifies such >>an action. Someone on Bahai-Discuss THREATENED me, and >>yet she is still on BD. >> >>> >>>It can't have been an easy decision and I don't envy the position of >>>the BCCA in having to make it. No matter what they decided there was >>>bound to be negative fallout. I don't presume to judge whether the >>>decision was "right" or not, but am sure that the committee was aware >>>that the charge of personal antagonism towards Frederick might be made >>>and so that would have been "on the table" so to speak -- how to prevent >>>personal reactions from contaminating the outcome of consultation. >>> >>>> As to the probable effect on approval of TRB, this is one of the best >>>> things that could be done to help it get approved. Fred has consistently >>>> made it difficult to support approval of the newsgroup. >> >>Absurd.... It's action was clearly calculated to inflame the passions >>of BD participants against the proposal about which much opinion was >>becoming increasingly favorable. >> >>> >>>Three items: 1) the BCCA decision regarding Frederick was not motivated >>>by any interest in swaying votes on the talk.religion.bahai proposal -- >>>as you suggest, this action might actually help the proposal; >> >>How do you know? Were you involved in the decision? >> >>2) as many >>>have suggested, the behavior of one individual should not be the basis >>>for decision on this proposal -- neither negative reactions to past >>>behavior, or concern about future behavior -- it's related to principles >>>of consultation and detachment; >> >>The BCCA just squashed all consultation by means of its unjust act. >> >>and 3) although it may be obvious, >>>prayers would help (& not just for one person). >> >>Justice, not prayers, are what I want.... >> >>> >>>DZO >>> >>>> Fred had moderated his tone in his last few posts to the baha'i lists >>>> so those posts probably had no influence toward this action and may >>>> have made the BCCA decision more difficult. I don't know the reason >>>> for this action but if I was going to take a guess, one possibility is >>>> that Fred posted a bunch of other people's messages from a baha'i >>>> list to a public newsgroup without the authors' permission. This >>>> is pretty questionable behavior and possibly illegal - it also could >>>> seriously hurt someone who thought their email to the baha'i email >>>> list was somewhat private. >> >> > > >-- > Dr. K.R. Tookey > Computer Information Systems, Columbia College > 1001 Rogers St Columbia Mo 65216 > For fast response: email to: > ktookey@mail.coin.missouri.edu or krtookey@email.ccis.edu > > _ __ _____ > / / _/_ / /__) / / > /\^ _. ^ / /-. /\ / _ _ /_ _. . . > / \_(/_/__/__/ / / \ / (_)_(_)_/ <_(/___\/ > _/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:29 AM To: Jean B. Hunter Subject: Fw: failure notice 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: MAILER-DAEMON@hotmail.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 7:10 AM Subject: failure notice >Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotmail.com. >I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. >This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > >: >Sorry, I couldn't find any host named pitbull.cornell.edu. (#5.1.2) > >--- Below this line is a copy of the message. > >Return-Path: >Received: (qmail 21205 invoked from network); 2 Dec 1997 12:10:35 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO glayshe1) (199.179.42.118) > by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 1997 12:10:35 -0000 >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "Jean B. Hunter" >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai ( Suggestions received -- VERY LONG) >Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:10:48 -0500 >Message-ID: <01bcff1b$53365200$762ab3c7@glayshe1> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Please post this to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jean B. Hunter >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:32 AM >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai ( Suggestions received -- VERY LONG) > > >>In article <65uc6s$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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:22 AM To: Ron House; Chris Manvell; Michael McKenny Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai McKenny Michael wrote in message <65k4t0$c1@freenet-news.carleton.ca>... > > However, I did find someone, Elizabeth >Holden (I believe she is one of those who voted YES last time), >willing to be a proponent. Also, I invited several others, as I >mention above. Maybe something will come of that. However, I believe >it would make things a great deal easier were you to leave it up to >others to promote TRB, and especially were you to refrain on the >Baha'i lists from raising issues related to individuals. I'd be happy to welcome Elizabeth Holden as a proponent. What about you, Chris? Ron? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:22 AM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai McKenny Michael wrote in message <65k4t0$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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:12 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <347C7D71.2D18@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> 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.... > >If you are so concerned about this, then I urge you to write to the >Universal House of Justice -- privately -- and express your concerns. >This is your right as a Baha'i. I've thought carefully about this and have decided it would be wrong to write the UHJ in private. This is a public issue. Bahais have made it a public issue. Only a public answer from the highest Bahai institution addressed to those injured by past acts of suppression can correct the misperceptions about Bahais' loyalty to their own teachings that praise free speech and religious conscience. I have forwarded this message to the UHJ in order again to give them the public opportunity to reprove the overly zealous and demonstrate, through the evidence of their guidance, that Bahais indeed respect the voting system of Usenet, as they do other duly constituted forms of governance and conventions of human rights. > >I stress that you should write *privately* to the House, for as has been >mentioned, the House does not respond to open letters. If you do this, >I am sure that it will consider your message in due course. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) 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, December 03, 1997 8:12 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <347C7D71.2D18@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> 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.... > >If you are so concerned about this, then I urge you to write to the >Universal House of Justice -- privately -- and express your concerns. >This is your right as a Baha'i. I've thought carefully about this and have decided it would be wrong to write the UHJ in private. This is a public issue. Bahais have made it a public issue. Only a public answer from the highest Bahai institution addressed to those injured by past acts of suppression can correct the misperceptions about Bahais' loyalty to their own teachings that praise free speech and religious conscience. I have forwarded this message to the UHJ in order again to give them the public opportunity to reprove the overly zealous and demonstrate, through the evidence of their guidance, that Bahais indeed respect the voting system of Usenet, as they do other duly constituted forms of governance and conventions of human rights. > >I stress that you should write *privately* to the House, for as has been >mentioned, the House does not respond to open letters. If you do this, >I am sure that it will consider your message in due course. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) 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, December 03, 1997 7:59 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: forward too to UHJ? May I also simultaneously, in public, forward your remailer message to the UHJ as evidence of the widening perception in cyberspace of Bahai suppression of conscience and invite them again to enjoin upon Bahais not to vote NO? 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, December 03, 1997 7:43 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Fw: anonymous remailers May I repost this to news.groups as further comment on tactics used in cyberspace? 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: irfan@umich.edu ; talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 12:31 AM Subject: 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, 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 7:38 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <663eo3$6qn$5@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <6610rf$rf4@news2.zippo.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: >All that I am saying is that I favor a place where talk about a bahai >spammer is allowed. I am *NOT* saying that srb is that place. Okay. Sorry if I misunderstood 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: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 7:32 AM To: Ron House Subject: 3rd proponent added Ron House has kindly accepted an offer to brave the fray.... Chris and I have agreed in email.... Thanks, Ron! You're a man of guts! -- 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, December 03, 1997 7:32 AM Subject: 3rd proponent added Ron House has kindly accepted an offer to brave the fray.... Chris and I have agreed in email.... Thanks, Ron! You're a man of guts! -- 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, December 03, 1997 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai -- roger.borseth wrote in message <3p0h.9993$XX1.1049485@news.internetMCI.com>... >I moniter ARB to determin my vote on TRB, but do not post there as I want to >see how serious the proponants of TRB are. If they can abanden ARB then how >are they going to be able to support a secound newsgroup. I can see no >reason for a secound unmoderated Baha'i newsgroup if the first is not fully >supported. The talk.* hierarchy is not the alt.* hierarchy.... etc.... > >There does not seem to be enough interest amoung Baha'is to support an >unmoderated group, in UseNet, to make it a viable enterprise. I can count on >the fingers of one hand the number of Baha's that have posted in support of >it both here and in ARB. I would have to see many more Baha'is in support of >the venture before I could support it. 533 different individuals have posted to arb according to an analysis done by a non-Bahai recently.... on 1,200+ different threads.... > >Peace and Unity > >Roger > 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, December 03, 1997 7:17 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote in message <34848597.308F@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> What is your recommendation for those who fully understand >> it's supposed to be merely an interest poll and yet intend to >> vote NO to oppose it none the less? >> >Quite frankly - there is NOTHING we can do about those people. As the >system currently stands are recourse would be to appeal to Tale that >this was not in the best interest of Usenet, or to change the system >entirely. This is what the folks developing the net.* and mod.* >heirarchies are doing, as well as severla proposals which have been >floated to reform the Big 8 system. If trb fails this vote, we can work >to get a group in a number of ways, but we can't do anything about the >people who voted against it. I did appeal to Tale after the last massive NO vote was announced on March 27, 1997.... I don't blame him, really, but, for the record, nothing was done though the statistics were appalling to many observers.... What are those "in a number of ways" alternatives? > >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, December 03, 1997 6:53 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) >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. > >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....................................... Things need to get rolling again back to the RFD and so on. Can you help? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 9:18 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3475B3F8.58772E39@ford.com>... Please let others continue their work to >educate those Baha'is who don't understand the purpose of a Usenet >interest poll or what is and is not an appropriate reason to vote on >a group. What is your recommendation for those who fully understand it's supposed to be merely an interest poll and yet intend to vote NO to oppose it none the less? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@ford.com (work) ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (home) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 9:13 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <3475B031.1501@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >The best way is to continue with the reasoned discussions which have >been taking place here. They are having an effect. I don't know >whether this means that t.r.b would pass or not. If it is defeated >again, I would dare say that the margin of defeat will be smaller. And >if it passes, then great! What is your recommendation for those who refuse to listen to reason? I would find no satisfaction in the margin of defeat being smaller when it deserves to pass due to the overwhelmingly demonstrated interest in the formation of an unmoderated group on the Bahai faith.... > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) 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, December 02, 1997 9:08 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote in message ... >It is up to the Baha'i users of the group to show the spirit of the Baha'i >teachings on how we should disport ourselves. As many have remarked, this is precisely what happened on alt.religion.bahai.... It's only logical to expect the same on talk.religion.bahai.... Those who wish to go elsewhere, may.... 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, December 02, 1997 9:04 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote in message <34794cb0.9982629@news.zippo.com>... > >If supporters of an unmoderated group for one of those religions came >along, I would support them too, there is always room for unmoderated >AND moderated groups on a topic, if only to satisfy different users >comfort levels. And I think this has long been one of the best arguments for trb. It's really all people are asking for.... > >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: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 9:01 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Graham Sorenson wrote in message ... >You can argue against the Faith's teachings, about Baha'u'llah, or any >other aspect of the Faith in SRB or any other newsgroup and I doubt if >you will get any complaints. You certainly will get rebuttles or >comments if someone has a different pov, but so long as you are on >topic, not giving an individual verbal grief, and generally adhereing to >the charter of the group the comments will be posted. Apparently, this has not been Guy Macon's experience.... Similar to that of many.... 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, December 02, 1997 8:58 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai >In article <3474ACA7.A84@et.byu.edu>, Robert Craig Harman > wrote: >> In any case, the hype and campaigning against this would certinly not >> work for talk.religion.bahai since people's feelings for the Baha'is >> are by no means as strong as their fear and loathing of Nazism. > >I disagree, since a similar thing happened the first time this vote came >around. The only difference being that many of the NO votes came from >Baha'is afraid to allow the open discussion of their faith (iow not for >legitimate reasons). I think this will likely happen again. Should others on Usenet permit any group that comes along to do this? Is it in the best interest of Usenet? > >-- >Jason Roberts 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, December 02, 1997 8:49 AM To: Ginger Glaser; Michael McKenny; Chris Manvell; Ron House Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) >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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:49 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) >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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:24 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Re: Dissembling ----- >From: "Susan Maneck" >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 19:25:29 EST >Subject: Re: Dissembling > >Fred asks: > >> Is the word "taqiyyih" ever used >> in the Bahai Writings? Would you cite the passage.... > >Yes it is. Baha'u'llah explicitly forbids it and replaces it with >*hikmat.* Here's the passage: > >"In this Day, We can neither approve of the conduct of the fearful >that seeketh to dissemble his faith, nor sanction the behaviour of >the avowed believer that clamorously asserteth allegiance to this >Cause. Both should observe the dictates of wisdom [bayad bi-hikmat >amil bashand], and strive dillegently to serve the best interests of >the Faith." Gleanings. p. 343. Is THIS the only passage in the Bahai writings that uses the word "taqiyyih"? > >> Are there other passages you know of, translated or not, in which >> Baha'u'llah suggests the same? Similarly, as with Islam, are they always >>in regard to non-believers? > >I don't think so. Passages involving hikmat seem to carry a broader >meaning in the Lawh-i Maqsud, for instance. No other passages? And yet your article, which I've now read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... [clip] >While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at >other times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit >which ought to typify all of our human interactions at all times. A change of subject, in my opinion.... I'm interested in the "broader terms" of the original concept and practice.... It seems to me more influential in the Bahai community, or the general tendency, I should say.... >Consider this passage: > [clip] > >Susan Maneck >Berry College > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:10 AM To: Jean B. Hunter Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai ( Suggestions received -- VERY LONG) Please post this to news.groups and 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 -----Original Message----- From: Jean B. Hunter To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:32 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 1997 9:02 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai I'm working on comparing soc.religion.bahai's charter with trb's RFD.... If anyone would like a copy, it can be found at >ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/ > >-- >Jim Riley Thanks, Jim.... 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, December 01, 1997 8:57 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai ( Suggestions received -- VERY LONG) Onward to the 3rd RFD! Recapituation (strickly from fallible memory): Open to other suggested co-proponents.... Dropping the talk.*/soc.* hierarchy hot potato.... A few other minor kinks here and there.... Other 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: Monday, December 01, 1997 8:44 AM Subject: Numbers recap 4,254 postings to alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997 to December 1, 1997.... Up until early October prior to the posting of the first RFD, there were 533 different posters 1,124 different threads -- 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, December 01, 1997 8:31 AM To: major@johnco.cc.ks.us subscribe bahai-st fglaysh@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 1997 8:27 AM Subject: Re: KORAN/BIBLE: NOT THE SAME GOD!!! Chris wrote in message ... >Not answering your particular points, Stephen, but, the Jews, Christians >and Muslims all believe that there is one God (as written in their holy >books). If the God of the Bible is not the same as the God of Islam, >then either the God of teh Bible, or the God of the Qur'an, is non- >existant. On hte other hand, the Qur'an affirms the Bible so, there >being only one God (by definition from the source material) that God >must be the God of the Bible and of the Qur'an. Any differences that >appear to exist are purely because none of us can ever realise the >complete God, we only have a small window on reality. > >Chis > Glad to see your technical problems are at least momentarily relieved.... 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, December 01, 1997 8:13 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <65t1bu$ari$2@news01.deltanet.com>... >I think that the subject of whether bahais should spam newsgroups and >email to advertise a bahai webpage is something that should be allowed >in a bahai newsgroup, as long as I am polite and respectful about it. But probably your "true" motive is only to attack the Bahai Faith.... Isn't the job of a "moderator" to keep everything positive and upbeat? >The soc.religion.bahai moderators disagree. They, of course, have that >right. This does refute the argument that s.r.b is inclusive enough to >meet the needs of everyone who wishes to discuss the bahai faith, though. I doubt you'll ever find a Bahai who's on God's side who will agree you.... The SILENCE should speak eloquently on this issue, as on others.... >I would have loved to see bahai opinions on spamming, with quotes from >the usual bahai sources. I don't know if you bahai's realize this, but >your written works (scriptures?) contain some *good stuff*! Lots of great glowing words on everything, including free speech, conscience, democracy, etc., etc.... 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, December 01, 1997 8:02 AM To: major@johnco.cc.ks.us unsubscribe bahai-st FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 4:22 PM Subject: Conscience: "freed from imitations and superstitions" It seems to me the UHJ's letter not opposing unmoderated newsgroups concurs with the thinking in this passage in Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, page 29: "O ye two blessed souls! Your letters were received. They showed that ye have investigated the truth and have been freed from imitations and superstitions, that ye observe with your own eyes and not with those of others, hearken with your own ears and not with the ears of others, and discover mysteries with the help of your own consciences and not with those of others. For the imitator saith that such a man hath seen, such a man hath heard, and such a conscience hath discovered; in other words he dependeth upon the sight, the hearing and the conscience of others and hath no will of his own." -- 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 30, 1997 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Messed up newsreader I have a similar problem with another news server. I'm downloading and reading a 500 messages, or marking whole threads read, but they're not being deleted the next time I connect.... They're staying on and the list keeps growing to over 1600 messages now. I'd like them to be deleted immediately after I've read them so that only the Unread messages appear next time. How do I do it? -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 2:39 PM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai roger.borseth wrote in message ... >I haven't;t seen a Baha'i post in ARB for more than three days now. The only >post of seen have had their origin in other newsgroups. There was only one >post that dealt with the Baha'i Faith and that was a complaint from someone >about a Baha'i that has been spaming in other newsgroups. Do you think it is a legitimate complaint? What's your point? I would guess a lot of people are still on vacation for Thanksgiving.... I know I just got back.... 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 30, 1997 2:32 PM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Re: Dissembling >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:00:06 -0600 >From: "Bijan/Farnaz Ma'sumian" >Subject: Re: Dissembling > >The term you're looking for is probably "taqiyyih" (dissimulation/hiding >one's religious belief system or pretending to belong to an accepted >religious system to protect oneself) practiced by many Shi'ihs in time of >physical danger. We're there situations in which Shi'ihs would practice "taqiyyih" with other Muslims not only with infidels? If so, can you give me an example or historical illustration of the practice? Is the word "taqiyyih" ever used in the Bahai Writings? Would you cite the passage.... Some Babis and Baha'is may have practiced it occasionally >but, to my knowledge, the Baha'i Writings do not support dissimulation. The >closest thing in the Baha'i writings to "taqiyyih" I can think of would be >Baha'u'llah's suggestion to "observe wisdom" meant to encourage his >followers to avoid volunteering their religious preference indiscriminately >and, in the process, create problems for themselves and their >fellow-believers. Are there other passages you know of, translated or not, in which Baha'u'llah suggests the same? Similarly, as with Islam, are they always in regard to non-believers? This was particularly understandable in the 19th century >due to the size of the nascant Baha'i community and the frequency and >severity of the persecutions. > >Bijan Ma'sumian >Austin, Texas Susan Maneck: Thanks for mentioning your paper on hikmat. I'm working on reading it. Perhaps that will answer some of these and other questions I have in regard to dissembling in the Muslim/Bahai context.... 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 30, 1997 1:11 PM To: jsgreen@umich.edu Cc: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Resubscription: talisman I would like to resubscribe to talisman. Juan Cole states below that it's all right. Please use my email address at fglaysh@hotmail.com. 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: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Dissembling > >Dear Frederick: > >The reason you were thrown off Talisman was that you called Sheila a "prig" >and used similar abusive language toward several other participants, and >*everyone* on the list was upset with you. Everyone of all ideological >stripes. What Josh wanted from you was an acknowledgment that that behavior >was inappropriate and that you will refrain from personally insulting other >list members if you are readmitted. It was Josh's understanding that you >had come to terms with this tendency to "flame" indiscriminately. > >If I describe the situation correctly (i.e. that you are now willing to be >civil even on an unmoderated list), message Josh at jsgreen@umich.edu and >ask him to resubscribe you to Talisman, and tell him I said it was all right >(you could forward him this message). > >I think your point of view can be an important corrective to more hardline >and rightwing ones, but only if you develop some "emotional intelligence" >(the title of a book I highly recommend to you) about how to build a network >of friends and supporters for your position. > >cheers Juan > > >>Frederick Glaysher >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Juan R. I. Cole >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 5:25 PM >>Subject: Re: Dissembling >> >> >>> >>>Frederick: >>> >>>Do you think psychologically you could handle being on talisman again >>>without flaming other participants? There are very obnoxious conservatives >>>on that list, but Josh doesn't want the list roiled (any more than it is) >>by >>>vituperative language. >>> >>>I'll be incommunicado till Thanksgiving, but we can talk then. >>> >>>cheers Juan >> >>Though I have never fully understood the reasons nor the manner >>in which I was brusquely thrown off talisman and then kept >>off, even after six months, I harbor no ill will towards talisman >>or anyone there that needs to be revisited.... >> >>Sure, I'd accept reinstatement.... Please use the following >>address: fglaysh@hotmail.com which I use exclusively for >>mailing lists. >> >>And thanks for the invitation. My having access to talisman might >>help a great deal with the passing of talk.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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 1:00 PM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Re: Bahai-st #2 (Fw: Returned mail: User unknown) Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 10:20 AM 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. Frankly, I don't know on what basis a libel suit could be filed.... He posted a public attack against trb and has continued to work against it in my opinion. I have merely said so.... I won't post anything else about him to BD. > >It has nothing to do with how I feel about the proposal for >talk.religion.bahai, which I actually feel quite positive about. I appreciate your saying so. You had said something favorable about one of the passages on free speech or conscience from the Writings, and so I felt very confused when I received your two messages.... I'll try to keep things more neutral but it's very hard when practically anything I say is vehemently attacked by other Bahais.... I won't post anything on trb if you wish.... > >However, thank you for your explanation. I will place you back on the list. Thank you. I appreciate it. > >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. Well, I'll refrain, since you've asked me, from posting anything in regard to Towfiq, and the proposal if you wish.... At the least, I'll try to be more discriminating and not post anything about the UHJ as well, since I recall they too were a concern.... > >Regards, Mark > 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 30, 1997 12:44 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Re: Dissembling Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: Juan R. I. Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Dissembling > >Frederick: > >Do you think psychologically you could handle being on talisman again >without flaming other participants? There are very obnoxious conservatives >on that list, but Josh doesn't want the list roiled (any more than it is) by >vituperative language. > >I'll be incommunicado till Thanksgiving, but we can talk then. > >cheers Juan Though I have never fully understood the reasons nor the manner in which I was brusquely thrown off talisman and then kept off, even after six months, I harbor no ill will towards talisman or anyone there that needs to be revisited.... Sure, I'd accept reinstatement.... Please use the following address: fglaysh@hotmail.com which I use exclusively for mailing lists. And thanks for the invitation. My having access to talisman might help a great deal with the passing of talk.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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 12:13 PM To: Ron House Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? How about being a coproponent? You won't have to do anything really if you don't want to.... 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: Ron House Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Monday, November 24, 1997 12:34 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? >Chris wrote: >> >> In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher >> wrote >> >>I disagree, since a similar thing happened the first time this vote came >> >>around. The only difference being that many of the NO votes came from >> >>Baha'is afraid to allow the open discussion of their faith (iow not for >> >>legitimate reasons). I think this will likely happen again. >> > >> >It seems that despite every effort on my part and the other co-proponent, >> >Chris Manvell, not to mention many other people, many, many Bahais >> >seem bent on finding one excuse or another to oppose talk.religion.bahai. >> > >> >Perhaps massive spam emailing and YES vote campaigning >> >SHOULD now be considered? >> >> I am absolutely opposed to this (I suspect Fred is actually playing >> devil's advocate in this case). > >Indeed. This is a terrible idea. It is much more >important to find out how many serious votes each >way are cast than to win the argument. (You wouldn't >win in any case, as obvious spam votes can be >nullified.) If there are, say, 200 people who >want this group and still 400 trying to prevent >it, it is more important to know that fact than >to get the NG. I want to see whether the Baha'is >have learned anything over the last six months, >or whether they are still trying to close down >free discussion, in opposition to everything >Baha'u'llah stood for. I highly doubt they've learnt anything.... They're working hard at kicking me off every mailing list there is, and, in retrospect, the BCCA obviously intimated it would do just that.... As well as continue to demonize 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" ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Bahai McKenny Michael wrote in message <65k4t0$c1@freenet-news.carleton.ca>... > >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. I've been all in favor of widening the co-proponents for at least three months now.... Chris Manvell has contributed a lot to discussion all along and since he became a co-proponent. Discussion has been slightly sidetracked for a week or two and he's been having technical difficulties. Nevertheless, it's time to get rolling again on the 3rd RFD and ignore the rest, I suppose.... (background sounds of stamping and wiping of feet:) 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. I would think so.... > 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. Many don't seem to care about the negative image of the Faith.... 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. I don't believe a massive counter vote can be avoided in any other way.... > 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. All I have to do is open my mouth, it's true.... Why does no one inveigh against backbiting, gossip, and calumny when it comes to me? > 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. Since I have emailed Mark Foster, owner of Bahai-studies directly on these matters, I shan't comment here other than to say I was underaware of his opinions on these topics, that such prohibitions existed, and did not intend to upset him in anyway.... > 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. I'm willing to have a non-Bahai on board and have said so many times, inviting one and all. It should be noted that Chris Manvell's presence has seemed to make little difference for many.... Which has led me to observe in the past that I am merely being used as a scapegoat for what the real issue is: free speech and religious conscience.... 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. I received two posts from him on Wednesday the 26th but was not online, unusally, until late that day. I've explained all that to him directly.... Now that I am informed of the prohibition, I shall certainly observe knowing it is Mark Foster's wish that I and all others do so.... Again, I've just come back from vacation today to find my two messages to him late the 26th BOUNCED, my mailer picking up the wrong address.... Sorry. > 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. It certainly is! I'm not at all offended. Why should I be? You're stating it as you see it, and that's fine. I don't have any big problem with discussion of talk.religion.bahai not being allowed on Bahai-ST if that's the decision of Mark Foster. Why should I? It's his list.... > Fare very Well, > 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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:29 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <65jfni$g1o$9@news01.deltanet.com>... >Reason enough for an unmoderated bahai newsgroup? I think so. I would think most people on or off Usenet would tend to agree.... Yours is exactly the kind of experience I had with soc.religion.bahai that led me nearly a year ago to begin working on the first proposal for talk.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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:25 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Ginger Glaser wrote in message <347C44E2.29A9@pfizer.com>... I am saying if it is ok to vote against a group "because it >conflicts with your religious beliefs' then it is ok for say, Christians >and Muslims to vote down every other religious group, because they have >the numbers of people to do so and any of these other groups would be >"against their religious beliefs". That's wrong, and so is this "it >won't reflect well on the Baha'i faith" thing that some people are >pushing here. I would think most people would find reasoning sound and flawless.... It does seem to me to identify exactly what a NO vote would amount to.... Can't remember who said this: >> What speech is being stifled? >> >Those who wish to disuss the Baha'i religion without having to get it >past a Baha'i moderator. A modest proposal.... > >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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:15 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai -- Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3480F205.D3515078@sprintmail.com>... >Rick Schaut wrote: >> >> If you publish a book in which you claim that your views constitute >> official Baha'i belief, then you may well be in violation of the >> trademark. > >Is that what you're concerned about? That trb is being established with >some implied authoritative voice? Is the disclaimer (trb is, like other >newsgroups, not an official organ of the Baha'i faith) which has been >discussed for the 3rd RFD sufficient? > >I suspect that anyone claiming to speak for anyone other than themselves >will be rapidly followed up with "that's not my religion" from someone >else. This is exactly what has happened on alt.religion.bahai for the last eight months now.... Others share THEIR point of view.... Simple enough.... >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (at 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: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:04 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: Mark A. Foster Subject: Re: Personal Please Reply 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 10:28 AM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Bahai-st #2 (Fw: Returned mail: User unknown) <> <> Apologies twice given! 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: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 5:43 PM Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >The original message was received at Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:43:55 -0500 (EST) >from hm2.hotmail.com [207.82.250.81] > >** >This is an automatic message to inform you that your email was not >forwarded through iName's server. > >The iName email address that you tried to send mail to may not be active. >Reasons for the failed delivery attempt could include: > >1. The iName customer has selected a new personalized iName email address > rendering their old iName email address inactive. > >2. The iName customer may have signed up for one of iName's free offers > and then not validated their forwarding address. > >3 The address may simply be typed incorrectly. Please check that you > typed the email address correctly. > >iName provides email users with a permanent, personalized and secure email >address that is independent of how one accesses the Internet. iName acts >as a global forwarding service. All email sent to a permanent iName address >is automatically forwarded to a user specified destination email address. >Please visit iName's Online Support Area at >https://www.iname.com/support/onlineSupport.html for further information. >** > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >mfoster@qni.com > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >... while talking to qni.com.: >>>> RCPT To: ><<< 550 ... Relaying Denied from barney.globecomm.net >550 mfoster@qni.com... User unknown > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 10:27 AM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Bahai-st (Fw: Returned mail: User unknown) <> <> I've just returned from vacation to discover the messages I sent you last Wednesday bounced! Sorry. Hope this hasn't created a 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 -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 5:43 PM Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >The original message was received at Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:42:49 -0500 (EST) >from hm2.hotmail.com [207.82.250.81] > >** >This is an automatic message to inform you that your email was not >forwarded through iName's server. > >The iName email address that you tried to send mail to may not be active. >Reasons for the failed delivery attempt could include: > >1. The iName customer has selected a new personalized iName email address > rendering their old iName email address inactive. > >2. The iName customer may have signed up for one of iName's free offers > and then not validated their forwarding address. > >3 The address may simply be typed incorrectly. Please check that you > typed the email address correctly. > >iName provides email users with a permanent, personalized and secure email >address that is independent of how one accesses the Internet. iName acts >as a global forwarding service. All email sent to a permanent iName address >is automatically forwarded to a user specified destination email address. >Please visit iName's Online Support Area at >https://www.iname.com/support/onlineSupport.html for further information. >** > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >mfoster@qni.com > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >... while talking to qni.com.: >>>> RCPT To: ><<< 550 ... Relaying Denied from dino.globecomm.net >550 mfoster@qni.com... User unknown > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 6:46 PM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Re: Removed -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 5:04 PM Subject: Removed >Since you have still not responded to me, I am removing you from the list. Still? From what baseline are you using? I've only read your message now at 5:35 this evening.... It seems very impatient. Nothing intended on my part. If you wrote me on a previous day, I'm afraid I never received your message.... Since I did have trouble a few weeks ago with a hard drive failure and having to reload Netscape and IE4, I wonder if you wrote me back then? Looking at the Details of your earlier message, I now see your message may have arrived in my mailbox at 9:20am, I assume. Again, I've been away from my computer all day. I see below in your second message you wrote me at 5:04 your time, which seems a few hours behind me.... From owner@sociologist.com Wed Nov 26 07:23:24 1997 Received: from realityman (1Cust13.tnt8.dfw5.da.uu.net [153.36.209.13]) by ultra.qni.com (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA17434 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:20:24 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711261520.JAA17434@ultra.qni.com> X-Sender: mfoster@mail.qni.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro 4.0 Beta 6 (build 221) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:22:50 -0600 To: "Frederick Glaysher" From: "Mark A. Foster" Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai In-Reply-To: <9711261242.AA09116@johnco.cc.ks.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Again, I'm quite surprised at your not giving me a chance to respond. I'm usually only online once a day.... Well, I ask you to reconsider since I've never heard any word from you before of concern.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at >------ >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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 6:34 PM To: Brent Poirier Subject: Re: Quotes on the Day of the Covenant I have not read your message. Please do not email me directly. 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: Brent Poirier To: Baha'i Discuss ; Baha'i Studies List Date: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 10:51 AM Subject: Quotes on the Day of the Covenant Last night we had a study class on the Covenant here in Las Cruces, and I thought the friends might like to see the quotes and included commentary. They are sent in two forms: included in this e-mail, but it's more than 250 lines long, and in case your e-mail reader is not able to receive that long a message, it is also here enclosed as an attachment. Warmest love Brent The Day of the Covenant BAHA'U'LLAH WAS PROPHECIED IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION AS "THE GLORY OF GOD;" HIS REVELATION AS "THE CITY OF GOD;" AND THE GUIDANCE OF HIS COVENANT AS THE "LIGHT" THAT WILL NOT ERR, AND THAT WILL SHINE UNTIL THE NEXT MANIFESTATION, SYMBOLIZED AS THERE BEING NO "DARKNESS" IN THE HOLY CITY: "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name." (Revelation 3:12) "And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God." (Revelation 21:10) "And the city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and the Lamb is its light. (Revelation 21:23) "Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. (Revelation 21:36-26) IN HIS COVENANT, BAHA'U'LLAH DIRECTED THE BELIEVERS TO "TURN" TO `ABDU'L-BAHA. HE PROMISED BOUNTIES TO THOSE WHO DID, AND THREATENED PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DID NOT: When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root. (Baha₫u₫llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas p. 63, Paragraph 121 There hath branched from the Sadratu'l-Muntaha this sacred and glorious Being, this Branch of Holiness; well is it with him that hath sought His shelter and abideth beneath His shadow. Verily the Limb of the Law of God hath sprung forth from this Root which God hath firmly implanted in the Ground of His Will, and Whose Branch hath been so uplifted as to encompass the whole of creation. Magnified be He, therefore, for this sublime, this blessed, this mighty, this exalted Handiwork! . . . Render thanks unto God, O people, for His appearance; for verily He is the most great Favor unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you; and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from My beauty, hath repudiated My Proof, and transgressed against Me. He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His manifestation unto you and His appearance among His favored servants . . . We have sent Him down in the form of a human temple. Blest and sanctified be God Who createth whatsoever He willeth through His inviolable, His infallible decree. They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error, are consumed by the heat of worldly desires, and are of those who will assuredly perish." (Baha'u'llah, "The Tablet of the Branch," quoted in The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pp. 134-135) It was not so in former dispensations. Christ, for instance, did not appoint a center of authority and explanation. He did not say to His followers, "Obey the one whom I have chosen." Upon one occasion He asked His disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ, wishing to make firm the faith of Peter, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," meaning that the faith of Peter was the true faith. It was a sanction of Peter's faith. He did not say that all should turn to Peter. He did not say, "He is the branch extended from my ancient root." He did not say, " O God! Bless all who serve Peter. O God! Degrade those who are not obedient to him. Shun him who is a violator of the Covenant. O God! Thou knowest that I love all who are steadfast in the Covenant." This has been revealed, however, in all the Books, Writings and Epistles of Baha'u'llah regarding the appointed Center of the Covenant in this dispensation. Therefore, the Baha'i dispensation is distinguished from all others in this fact, the purpose of Baha'u'llah being that no one could arise to cause differences and disunion. After the departure of Christ various sects and denominations arose, each one claiming to be the true channel of Christianity, but none of them possessed a written authority from Christ; none could produce proof from Him; yet all claimed His sanction and approval. Baha'u'llah has written a Covenant and Testament with His own pen, declaring that the One Whom He has appointed the Center of the Covenant shall be turned to and obeyed by all. Therefore, thank God that Baha'u'llah has made the pathway straight. He has clearly explained all things and opened every door for advancing souls. There is no reason for hesitation by anyone. (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 385-386) THE COVENANT OF `ABDU'L-BAHA: "The Guardian considers the existence of two forms of Covenant both of which are explicitly mentioned in the literature of the Cause. First is the covenant that every prophet makes with humanity or, more definitely, with His people that they will accept and follow the coming Manifestation who will be the reappearance of His reality. The second form of Covenant is such as the one Baha'u'llah made with His people that they should accept the Master. This is merely to establish and strengthen the succession of the series of Lights that appear after every Manifestation. Under the same category falls the Covenant the Master made with the Baha'is that they should accept His administration after Him.... (From a letter on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer dated October 21, 1932; Baha'i News #80, January, 1934, pp. 5-6) IN HIS COVENANT THE MASTER USED THE SAME SYMBOLS BAHA'U'LLAH HAD USED IN THE TABLET OF THE BRANCH -- TO SEEK THE SHELTER OF THE MASTER'S SHADE -- IN DIRECTING THE EYES OF THE FRIENDS, IN HIS OWN WILL, TO TURN TO SHOGHI EFFENDI, TO SEEK HIS SHELTER AND STAND IN HIS SHADOW: Salutation and praise, blessing and glory rest upon that primal branch of the Divine and Sacred Lote-Tree, grown out, blest, tender, verdant and flourishing from the Twin Holy Trees; the most wondrous, unique and priceless pearl that doth gleam from out the Twin surging seas; upon the offshoots of the Tree of Holiness, the twigs of the Celestial Tree, they that in the Day of the Great Dividing have stood fast and firm in the Covenant; upon the Hands (pillars) of the Cause of God that have diffused widely the Divine Fragrances, declared His Proofs, proclaimed His Faith, published abroad His Law, detached themselves from all things but Him, stood for righteousness in this world, and kindled the Fire of the Love of God in the very hearts and souls of His servants; upon them that have believed, rested assured, stood steadfast in His Covenant and followed the Light that after my passing shineth from the Dayspring of Divine Guidance - for behold! he is the blest and sacred bough that hath branched out from the Twin Holy Trees. Well is it with him that seeketh the shelter of his shade that shadoweth all mankind. (The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, P. 3) IN THE HEART OF HIS WILL, THE MASTER GIVES HIS COVENANT: THAT GOD WILL GUIDE BOTH THE GUARDIAN AND THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE. HE CALLS ON THE BELIEVERS TO TURN TO THEM, AND THREATENS THOSE WHO DO NOT: The sacred and youthful branch, the guardian of the Cause of God as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him! (The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, P. 11) THE GUARDIAN RESTS HIS OWN AUTHORITY ON THIS SAME PASSAGE OF THE MASTER'S WILL: The Guardian's infallibility covers interpretation of the Revealed Word and its application. Likewise any instructions he may issue having to do with the protection of the Faith, or its well being must be closely obeyed, as he is infallible in the protection of the Faith. He is assured the guidance of both Baha'u'llah and the Bab, as the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l- Baha clearly reveals." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, August 20, 1956; Lights of Guidance, 2nd edition, p. 313, #1055) THE PASSAGE OF THE WILL TO WHICH THE GUARDIAN REFERS, PROMISES THE GUIDANCE OF THE BAB AND BAHA'U'LLAH TO THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE, NO LESS THAN TO THE GUARDIAN OF THE CAUSE, WHO IS REFERRED TO AS "THE CENTER OF THE CAUSE:" For he is, after 'Abdu'l-Baha, the guardian of the Cause of God, the Afnan, the Hands (pillars) of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him. He that obeyeth him not, hath not obeyed God; he that turneth away from him, hath turned away from God and he that denieth him, hath denied the True One. Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Baha'u'llah) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error. (The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, pp. 25-26) THE MASTER IS REFERRED TO AS THE "PIVOT" OF BAHA'U'LLAH'S COVENANT: He is, and should for all time be regarded, first and foremost, as the Center and Pivot of Baha'u'llah's peerless and all- enfolding Covenant... (World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 134) THE GUARDIAN IS REFERRED TO AS THE PIVOT OF `ABDU'L-BAHA'S COVENANT: The institution of Guardianship, the pivot of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament ... (Messages to the Baha'i World, p. 148) THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE IS REFERRED TO BY THE GUARDIAN AS THE CENTER OF THE FAITH AND ITS PIVOT: ". . . the Pen of Glory has done away with the unyielding and dictatorial views of the learned and the wise, dismissed the assertions of individuals as an authoritative criterion, even though they were recognized as the most accomplished and learned among men and ordained that all matters be referred to authorized centers and specified assemblies. Even so, no assembly has been invested with the absolute authority to deal with such general matters as affect the interests of nations. Nay rather, He has brought all the assemblies together under the shadow of one House of Justice, one divinely-appointed Center, so that there would be only one Center and all the rest integrated into a single body, revolving around one expressly-designated Pivot, thus making them all proof against schism and division." (Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi dated 14 March 1927 addressed to the Spiritual Assembly of Istanbul; quoted in a letter of the Universal House of Justice Elucidating the Role of the Continental Counsellors, "Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1968-1973," pp. 94-96) These Spiritual Assemblies have been primarily constituted to carry out these affairs, and secondly to lay a perfect and strong foundation for the establishment of the divine and Universal House of Justice. When that central pivot of the people of Baha shall be effectively, majestically and firmly established, a new era will dawn, heavenly bounties and graces will pour out from that Source, and the all-encompassing promises will be fulfilled. (From a letter of Shoghi Effendi dated 30 October 1924 to the Spiritual Assembly of Tihran -- translated from the Persian, published in The Baha'i World Vol. XIV, p. 436 and in the Compilation on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 6:33 PM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 10:20 AM 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. 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 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 26, 1997 6:24 PM To: bahai-st Subject: Thanksgiving Meditation "They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty." William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, in 1621. "O Thou kind Lord! This gathering is turning to Thee. These hearts are radiant with Thy love. These minds and spirits are exhilarated by the message of Thy glad- tidings. O God! Let this American democracy become glorious in spiritual degrees even as it has aspired to material degrees, and render this just government victorious. Confirm this revered nation to upraise the standard of the oneness of humanity, to promulgate the Most Great Peace, to become thereby most glorious and praiseworthy among all the nations of the world. O God! This American nation is worthy of Thy favors and is deserving of Thy mercy. Make it precious and near to Thee through Thy bounty and bestowal." Abdu'l-Baha, Bahai Prayers. -- 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 26, 1997 6:24 PM Subject: Thanksgiving Meditation "They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty." William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, in 1621. "O Thou kind Lord! This gathering is turning to Thee. These hearts are radiant with Thy love. These minds and spirits are exhilarated by the message of Thy glad- tidings. O God! Let this American democracy become glorious in spiritual degrees even as it has aspired to material degrees, and render this just government victorious. Confirm this revered nation to upraise the standard of the oneness of humanity, to promulgate the Most Great Peace, to become thereby most glorious and praiseworthy among all the nations of the world. O God! This American nation is worthy of Thy favors and is deserving of Thy mercy. Make it precious and near to Thee through Thy bounty and bestowal." Abdu'l-Baha, Bahai Prayers. -- 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 26, 1997 9:53 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Invitation Michael, This is all very reasonable and I couldn't agree more. I'd like more proponents. I've suggested you a number of times but others have intimated you would hurt the chances of its passing because the fanatics would essentially burn you at the stake and trb with you!!! Or vice versa.... The Usenet technies have most all politely declinded.... I don't blame them really. I'm not sure someone completely out of the blue would be wise. I think it's best if the person has been involved at some stage already and then only perhaps, as techies have advised, another two or three people. Do whatever you can to keep the pressure on.... The BCCA's kicking me off was low as hell but it seems to be going against them now at times.... I'm directly appealing to the UHJ on that and will keep doing so whether they answer or not.... To my mind, they either live up to the conscience message or they can full well be perceived for being a bunch of hypocrits.... 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: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 7:34 AM Subject: Invitation >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. She has to be involved regularly on news.groups for others to agree to taking her on board. Where's she coming from? > 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. I've been saying it for months but the fanatics won't let go of their hatred of me.... Adding Chris didn't help really.... 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) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 9:35 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: The Sword of conscience 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 9:35 AM Subject: The Sword of conscience 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 9:17 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Sharon Bouchard wrote in message <3479e34e.8344700@news.cyberatl.net>... >On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:21:41 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>The fact is bahai@hotmail.com is definitely a Bahai and was and >>probably still is subscribed to Bahai-Discuss. Since that is a > >How do we know that the person is "definitely" a Baha'i? He was subscribed to Bahai-Discuss and posted numerous times to it, including reposting four of my messages from spring for which deed he was never chastized while I was booted off as a direct result of a chain of events stemming from his actions.... > >>Bahai-only list, he had to give his name and Bahai ID number in >>order to subscribe. Note the BCCA has recently kicked me off the > >This argument is spurious. The fact is, my cat could get onto the >mailing list, if he only knew enough to give a plausible ID number and >knew the address to send the subscribe message to. Is my cat >therefore a Baha'i? No QED here... Not in the least spurious.... This was discussed on Bahai-discuss during the last couple of months and I believe someone mentioned that Bahai ID numbers were indeed authenticated.... As they are routinely used to authenticate Bahais at conferences and meetings all the time all around the world.... How many non-Bahais even know how many digits are in a Bahai ID? As if your cat has actually tried it.... Sheeeshh.... 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 26, 1997 9:11 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) Chris wrote in message ... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote >>I stated in another message you may have missed during your >>technical woes that I'd be happy to have Sharon Bougard as >>a co-proponent if she and you agree. > >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? > >My woes have been found by (unashamed recommendation) Nuts and Bolts. >It appears that all my drives, compressed and logical, have corrupted >partition tables. I tried running PartitionMagic to have a look but the >system hung so N&B may well be right. That means that I have to back up >about 1.5GB of data (Where?) clean out the whole machine and run FDisk. >However, I cannot do this in the near future so shall just limp along >with what I've got. Are you sure a friend or someone hasn't sent you a virus? Oops! There I go again being paranoid! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 9:08 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored: 11-21-97 Notarius wrote in message <19971125135951.29557.qmail@nym.alias.net>... >Tell me if I am wrong. If I spend more time with Kafka >the urge to print NOTS will be irresistable. Kafka is the right allusion.... Others have made it too over the months.... THE TRIAL.... 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 26, 1997 9:02 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Chris wrote in message <6+uuCEAdRLe0EwN3@baha.demon.co.uk>... I feel that we should not spin this out for >too long (anywya, my computer could go off-line again any minute :-() -- >not to mention my spelling!) I'm not convinced that a quick and hasty vote is the best thing for talk.religion.bahai.... The time frame that takes us at least into March may be the best for helping educate Bahais on the importance of preserving the fragile system of Usenet interest polling.... 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 26, 1997 8:57 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 06:49:39 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>I have 344 messages to Bahai-Discuss on my hard drive relating >>to the vote. I would estimate fewer than 3% of those were ever >>crossposted to news.groups. > >...for obvious reasons. My point was that the RFD calls for crossposting to news.groups, yet extremely few Bahais chose to share their consultation with everyone on news.groups.... Why? > >Posts on the private mailing list are not to be cross-posted anywhere, >without prior permission of the author. Frankly, I'd be amazed if >even 3% such posts ever showed up on news.groups, simply because of >the time and effort required to get permission and then crosspost. My point is the authors themselves, if following usual practice, should have crossposted the messages so that Bahais and non-Bahais on news.groups would have the benefit of their ideas and opinions.... > >For another reason, a high percentage of those posts I wouldn't have >considered crossposting anyway, because the discussion would be >largely irrelevant in news.groups. I expect we've already done more >posting about Baha'i principles and theology than really belongs here. >I can't imagine why I would want to flood news.groups with even more. If Bahai "principles and theology" affect the vote on trb, then it is all highly relevant to news.groups.... Of the 344 messages I received before the BCCA disconnected me, I believe most if not all of them are revelvant and should have been crossposted, especially since most of them were from people who clearly intended ACTING on their opinions agains trb.... Far from flooding news.groups, it would be getting the full discussion out in the open where it should be taking place, on news.groups, or at least crossposted to it.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:49 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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$2@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <19971125181117.16054.qmail@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote: > >>I cannot stress enough how sensitive the net is to censorship >>attempts and what an enormous loss of PR a NO victory could be. > >This person speaks my mind. After the scientologist's attempt to >shut down alt.religion.scientology, the PR effects either way will >be large. A lot of people are watching this, and some of them will >use a massive no vote as a club to beat on bahaism with. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:49 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai It seems to me the now often made comparison with Scientology's suppression of free speech and conscience shoud be weighed in carefully during any consultation regarding what is taking place by Bahais against talk.religion.bahai.... Guy Macon wrote in message <65f973$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. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:46 AM To: UHJ; bahai-st Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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 > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:46 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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 > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:42 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:42 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 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.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:23 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: talk.religion.bahai 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:23 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:10 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Sharon Bouchard wrote in message <3479addd.278524@news.cyberatl.net>... >On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:31:46 -0800, "Rick Schaut" > wrote: >As a result of the discussion, I know of Baha'is who voted No >previously who will now either abstain or vote Yes, and people who are >still going to vote No appear to be much clearer about what it means >to vote No and what good reasons there are to vote No. What "good reasons" are there? Could you restate or summarize them for us? 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 25, 1997 8:52 AM To: trhan@serv.net Subject: link Thanks for the first installment. What I need is the link for the archive site on Usenet for the charter and RFD. There are, I believe, a number of sites where they are archived. 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 24, 1997 9:17 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai (Re: More proponents?) Chris wrote in message ... >In a message which I read on news.groups, Frederick Glaysher > wrote >>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. > >I'm not quite sure of the logic here, Fred, though I can see that to >have an independant expert on the team could be beneficial in getting >the best RFD. I stated in another message you may have missed during your technical woes that I'd be happy to have Sharon Bougard as a co-proponent if she and you agree. > >>Michael McKenny is fine with me. Chris >>seems to think he would elicit more NO votes from some Bahais.... > >Please let me make myself clear here -- I have nothing against Michael >personally and will work with him if he decides to be co-proponent. My >concern at this time is to do the utmost to get TRB launched and feel >that anything that would incread the probablilty of this happening (as >long as it is honest) is to be considered. My gut feeling was quite >simply that the circumstances of Mike's leaving the Faith would be >counter-productive. OTOH, the invitation shows an openness which is >commendable. "Leaving" is not the right word..... Michael was expelled from the Bahai Faith.... [no small clip] >Because of my PC probelms, I am not up to speed on the current state re >proponents. Who has accepted and who has declined? Can someone update >me on that? It's a little in flux. Guy Macon has gracefully declined, as did Henrietta Thomas some time ago. Ginger Glaser was considering it last I read. Again, Sharon would be a valuable person if she's willing. I think Michael would be too though I must concede you're about how some Bahais would react to his presence, which says a lot about the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... 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 23, 1997 10:50 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 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: Sunday, November 23, 1997 8:35 AM Subject: Bahai spammer? Guy Macon wrote: >I would strongly advise Ronald D. Stephens and/or Joel Smith >to avoid posting messages to soc.religion.quaker that have nothing >to do with Quakers or the Religious Society of Friends. I would >further suggest that both Ronald D. Stephens and Joel Smith be >honest and open when he advertises these web pages instead of >telling lies and decieving people. Whoever you are please don't post such things here on alt.religion.bahai or on soc.religion.Quaker. I second all of the above.... 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 23, 1997 8:21 AM Subject: talk.religion.bahai Reset to talk.religion.bahai Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3474A12B.5572@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Please note, the individual or individuals posting under this alias >address do(es) not represent the Baha'i faith in any way. Spamming >copyrighted articles, aside from being possibly illegal, is certainly >unethical, in poor taste, and a waste of bandwidth to boot. Follow-ups >set. > >bahai@hotmail.com wrote: The fact is bahai@hotmail.com is definitely a Bahai and was and probably still is subscribed to Bahai-Discuss. Since that is a Bahai-only list, he had to give his name and Bahai ID number in order to subscribe. Note the BCCA has recently kicked me off the Bahai lists, while apparently doing nothing about this individual who reposted without my permission four of my messages from Spring, inflaming passions against me and trb, leading to someone else personally threatening me, which said person is also still on Bahai-Discuss, and I am the one they have BANNED! 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 23, 1997 8:21 AM To: UHJ Subject: talk.religion.bahai Reset to talk.religion.bahai Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3474A12B.5572@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Please note, the individual or individuals posting under this alias >address do(es) not represent the Baha'i faith in any way. Spamming >copyrighted articles, aside from being possibly illegal, is certainly >unethical, in poor taste, and a waste of bandwidth to boot. Follow-ups >set. > >bahai@hotmail.com wrote: The fact is bahai@hotmail.com is definitely a Bahai and was and probably still is subscribed to Bahai-Discuss. Since that is a Bahai-only list, he had to give his name and Bahai ID number in order to subscribe. Note the BCCA has recently kicked me off the Bahai lists, while apparently doing nothing about this individual who reposted without my permission four of my messages from Spring, inflaming passions against me and trb, leading to someone else personally threatening me, which said person is also still on Bahai-Discuss, and I am the one they have BANNED! 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 23, 1997 7:49 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? (long response; sorry) Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <347723DB.C24CE4B0@sprintmail.com>... >(Unrelated note: Frederick, I don't read alt.religion.bahai and I have >purposely removed it from the newsgroups line when responding to you. >You have persistently returned the discussion to arb, putting my words >there. I'd really prefer you not do that.) Sorry. The RFD states discussion would be crossposted to both arb and news.groups. Just trying to be sure interested people see all of the interesting posts, that's all.... >> What do you suggest be done then about Bahais doing all of the >> above on private lists? > >There is nothing you can do. Some things are out of your control. I >am not convinced that there is massive campaigning against the group >going on. I am convinced that Sharon Bouchard, Roger Reini and others >are trying to educate those Baha'is on those lists as to appropriate >uses for Usenet groups and that your accusations are not helping that >effort. Let it go. Unfortunately, I read the Bahai lists for the last few months and believe the last NO vote was assembled on them in a similar way to what has recently been taking place.... It seems to me it would be foolish to ignore that.... I don't see how the vote can go forward until something significant changes in this regard. > >> >I cannot emphasize strongly enough that any campaign by you, which >> >includes accusations of purposeful wrongdoing by legions of Baha'is >> >or the BCCA, will turn people off and some of those people, perhaps >> >many of those people, will vote NO because you persist in belittling >> >their concerns. >> >> I'm not belittling their concerns. Indeed, I've made every effort for >> more than four months now to address them. Their response has usually >> been one of attacks on my character, smearing my name, and creating an >> environment that demonizes me, as in the BCCA's removing me from the >> mailing lists. > >Frederick, I am not privy to the discussions of the BCCA-CC with regard >to your being dropped from the lists in question. Frankly, I could >care less. If you were reposting private email without permission, I >might have tossed you too. I would have to say the entire context, including someone personally threatening me and the BCCA failing to properly respond to my immediate and direct email to them, asking their help, needs to be taken into consideration to fairly understand what took place. There are several other highly significant facts involved in a very complicated way. Perhaps too much so to go into here right now. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe there are many facts that if you were to know them would probably change your mind.... > >> >I believe some significant percentage of people voted NO last time >> >because they did not understand Usenet. >> >> Can they claim that now? > >I don't know. None of us will really know until the vote happens and >the results are counted. And a few people wander to news.groups to >talk about the vote. I have 344 messages to Bahai-Discuss on my hard drive relating to the vote. I would estimate fewer than 3% of those were ever crossposted to news.groups. > >> >I believe a similarly significant percentage of people voted NO >> >because of your tone of mistrust and accusation. > >> I and other Bahais and non-Bahais had and have good reason to mistrust >> soc.religion.bahai and some individuals.... Our mistrust is not an >> acceptable reason to vote NO on a Usenet proposal. > >And your mistrust, worded as accusations to those who Just Don't Know >The Rules As Well As You Do, are bound to tick people off. Most people >don't enjoy being told that they're stupid. Or that they're persecuting >someone, when they're just trying to live lives free from pointless >argument and meaningless contention. This is what some Bahais hope others will think is going on.... Alas.... > >> >Please learn from your mistakes. Please turn the other cheek when >> >you think you've been wronged. Please post with an educational, >> >rather than an accusatory, tone. Please let others continue their >> >work to educate those Baha'is who don't understand the purpose of a >> >Usenet interest poll or what is and is not an appropriate reason to >> >vote on a group. > >> I believe you're accepting too much at face value THEIR accusations >> of me.... It's nice of you to say all this about others educating >> them but it's just not happening.... How long should I pretend >> otherwise? > >You need to have two YES votes for every NO vote. Which part of it >would be wise not to piss people off are you flagrantly ignoring? Do >you want the group, or don't you? Would it were a matter of only "pissing" people off.... You see, that's the sad truth that ought to be exceedingly evident to many by now.... Try to relax though. I value your opinion and advice. It merely seems to me you are neglecting the religious motivations of the NO voters and their obstinate disregard for others having the right to express their own consciences.... The attempt to create talk.religion.bahai has been going on since January 17, 1997, and so there's a very long history involved, one often left out for convenient reasons.... Many people have told you to tone >it down or shut up, just in nicer words. I've been one of them, but >I am running out of patience. I don't really want to killfile you for >the duration of the discussion about this group. But if your postings >make me start to lose my temper, I will (I'm testing a plugin which >permits killfiles in Netscape, and it works pretty well). I'd prefer >not to use it in this case. All of this discussion has piqued my >interest in possibly using the group, should it pass, so I may even vote >YES. Don't persist in behavior which will bring out naysayers and waste >my vote. I'm baffled by your tone and anger. Sorry, but I really am.... > >Your tone of "Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help me, >I'm being repressed" is getting old. Make your case for the group >without slamming other people. If you cannot do that, please, stop >posting. Kathy, I and others have been making the case in usually very moderate terms for over four months.... At a crucial point when many people we're changing their minds, by their own statements, the BCCA chose to kick me off several private Bahai mailing lists inflaming passions, eight weeks after I had reposted the last of only a few anti-trb messages to arb. Do you really believe that was merely a coincidence? I'm certainly interested in trb passing. What I'm asking, with my eyes open, is where do we go from here? And this is why I've written the Bahai Universal House of Justice asking them to intervene.... >-- >Kathy Pascoe ~ kpascoe@sprintmail.com (at home) >..and the Wolverines have scored, twice now, while I've been writing >this!! Go Blue!! (Sorry. US college football reference.) 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 23, 1997 7:12 AM Subject: Re: SRB's RFD Notarius wrote in message <19971121014327.23499.qmail@nym.alias.net>... >Maybe you are on to something. >Why not ask the moderators to post it? >Sounds like a fair request that is OK on s.r.b. I've emailed srb and asked them for a copy of it and a link to its Usenet location. It must be archived somewhere. Anyone else know. I've also emailed >noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) 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 23, 1997 7:10 AM To: SRB Subject: Re: SRB's RFD Could you email me a copy of soc.religion.bahai's RFD/charter and a website link to its Usenet archive location? I'd apreciate it. Thanks. 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: Notarius Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 8:43 PM Subject: Re: SRB's RFD > > >Frederick wrote: > >>>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. > > >>No one interested in comparing the two? > >Maybe you are on to something. >Why not ask the moderators to post it? >Sounds like a fair request that is OK on s.r.b. > > >I know one man who can possibly help you find it: > >noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) > >notarius > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 7:08 AM To: noring@netcom.com Subject: Seeking RFD/Charter for soc.religion.bahai Notarius on news.groups has recently suggested you might know where I could find the Charter for soc.religion.bahai. Is there an archive of newsgroup charters? I'd appreciate your help. 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 23, 1997 6:08 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote: >The statement above matches my experiences with bahais. Where members >of some other religions really don't want to even consider any evidence >that they might be wrong, bahais tend to seek out such claims with a >quiet confidence that what they believe makes sense and will prevail >against any attack. Maybe it's because this is a young religion that >is not so stteped in tradition. That's why I am so suprised with those >who want to stop hundreds of people (just about all of them bahais as >far as I can see) who want a free and unmoderated place to discuss >bahaism. It just does not seem to fit my experience with bahais. Unfortunately, it seems to be the dark underbelly of the beast.... I think of Yeats: "Oh what rough beast is this...." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 6:02 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Macon wrote in message <6568ut$pkv$4@news01.deltanet.com>... An unmoderated bahai newsgroup would be more >accessable for those who use ISP's that don't carry very many >groups and are forced to use dejanews to read and post. The problem is, though, that many Bahais don't want greater accessibility but greater control.... "Accessibility" is in favor these days for all kinds of causes, but unfortunately, apparently, not for the Bahai Faith.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 1997 5:51 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG I commiserate about your technical problems having been through it again lately myself.... Damn computers.... Sorry to hear about >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. Nancy Damren? She's the person who threatened me twice, after bahai@hotmail.com attacked me, leading to the BCCA kicking me off.... I'm working on all that.... 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. To me, time helps, not hurts. True, some will get bored, but the opposition will not be able to claim after the vote they didn't understand.... It's a positive thread to me, highly analogous to what's being attempted again with trb.... 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, November 22, 1997 9:56 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: A.R.B. by subject Robert Craig Harman wrote in message <34749F56.2C4D@et.byu.edu>... >Well, in <345A5BDF.3D73@et.byu.edu>, I had predicted about 1000 unique >threads. An actual count shows 1124 threads in this listing, though >they aren't necessarily unique. I don't have the time to actually go >through and ferret out all the duplicates though I feel confident that >my methodology in predicting the complete number of threads based on >totals for the top fifty was justified. Hey, I believe it! 1124 roughly is close enough.... I appreciate your going to this trouble. If truth be known, I often mess up balancing my checkbook! > >-- >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 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, November 22, 1997 9:53 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai RFD: A.R.B. posting by author/subject Robert Craig Harman wrote in message <34749D7A.7A03@et.byu.edu>... >I get 533 posters listed. Now, removing duplicate listings (some >multiple) for: > >Glaysher, Reini, JKRoberts, MrMojoMan, Mirele, THRiley, hallaj, habaoch, >FBDennis, R. Craig Harman, fran(@dgii), Kavosh Soltani, Kent Sandvik, >Notarius, Ken McE > >The number drops to 513. There may be other duplicates. Thanks for bringing us back to the discussion of numbers. 513 individual posters sounds like an awful lot to me. Difficult to see that as a lack of interest in trb.... > >This actually compares amazingly well with the guess of 550-560 that >I had proposed on October 31 in article <345A5BDF.3D73@et.byu.edu>. Yeah, I remember it.... > >Let's see how well I did on figuring out the number of unique threads... It's got to be an incredible number.... > >-- >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: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:47 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher gets it backwards again! 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher gets it backwards again! 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:05 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <3475B3F8.58772E39@ford.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> It seems that despite every effort on my part and the other >> co-proponent, Chris Manvell, not to mention many other people, many, >> many Bahais seem bent on finding one excuse or another to oppose >> talk.religion.bahai. >> >> Perhaps massive spam emailing and YES vote campaigning >> SHOULD now be considered? > >No. Please go right ahead and put a pointer in your .sig file to >news.groups so folks can look at the discussion. I have had such a pointer for a month or two but soc.religion.bahai is now preventing me from posting to it solely on the basis of that pointer! The message itself contained the very words of Baha'u'llah Himself, the Founder of the Bahai Faith! See "SRB censored: 11-21-97." Please do not email >anyone who has not expressed a desire for an email correspondence with >you about the proposal. Please do not attempt to campaign by taking >your grievances, real and perceived, to groups other than news.groups >and alt.religion.bahai. What do you suggest be done then about Bahais doing all of the above on private lists? > >I cannot emphasize strongly enough that any campaign by you, which >includes accusations of purposeful wrongdoing by legions of Baha'is >or the BCCA, will turn people off and some of those people, perhaps >many of those people, will vote NO because you persist in belittling >their concerns. I'm not belittling their concerns. Indeed, I've made every effort for more than four months now to address them. Their response has usually been one of attacks on my character, smearing my name, and creating an environment that demonizes me, as in the BCCA's removing me from the mailing lists. > >I believe some significant percentage of people voted NO last time >because they did not understand Usenet. Can they claim that now? I believe a similarly >significant percentage of people voted NO because of your tone of >mistrust and accusation. I and other Bahais and non-Bahais had and have good reason to mistrust soc.religion.bahai and some individuals.... Our mistrust is not an acceptable reason to vote NO on a Use net proposal. > >Please learn from your mistakes. Please turn the other cheek when >you think you've been wronged. Please post with an educational, rather >than an accusatory, tone. Please let others continue their work to >educate those Baha'is who don't understand the purpose of a Usenet >interest poll or what is and is not an appropriate reason to vote on >a group. I believe you're accepting too much at face value THEIR accusations of me.... It's nice of you to say all this about others educating them but it's just not happening.... How long should I pretend otherwise? >-- >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: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:47 AM To: bahai-st; UHJ Subject: SRB censored: 11-21-97 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:47 AM Subject: SRB censored: 11-21-97 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:23 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG 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.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:23 AM Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG 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.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 8:13 AM Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Ginger Glaser wrote in message <3475E6C3.1104@pfizer.com>... > I consider "block" votes to be those from people who were >simply solicited to vote, have not read any discussion or even the CFV >and vote blindly according to whatever dogma instructed them. Oh am I struggling with this one!!!!! fglaysher wrote: >> How about yourself? The offer still stands. It would be very >> helpful to have an impartial non-Bahai as a proponent. And >> you seem to have a good sense of what Usenet should be >> about. >> >I am considering your offer. I take being a proponent very seriously, >including participating in the group for several months after its >formation, and I need to figure out if I have the time to commit. The offer still stands.... How about just checking in once in a while for a month or two? > >[snip more] > >Ginger ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 9:18 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com Guy Macon wrote in message <650qsq$qum$6@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <64vaod$rve@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote: > >> ...and the public relations consequences of not >> supporting unmoderated discussion on TRB... > >You REALLY need to talk about this. > >You NO voters, do you have any idea what this looks like to us >non bahais? I thank God that I had prior experience with bahais, >or I would have lumped you with the stupid cultists who know >in their hearts that they are wrong, and do anything to suppress >discussion about their cult. This is what Bahais appear like to many, many people observing the continuing opposition and reprehensible tactics of the BCCA and some Bahais to talk.religion.bahai. I again appeal to you to intervene to protect the image of the Faith. > >Think about the impression 600 no votes gives... It's not pretty. > Most Usenet proposals receive only 20 to 30 NO votes.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 9:18 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com Guy Macon wrote in message <650qsq$qum$6@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <64vaod$rve@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote: > >> ...and the public relations consequences of not >> supporting unmoderated discussion on TRB... > >You REALLY need to talk about this. > >You NO voters, do you have any idea what this looks like to us >non bahais? I thank God that I had prior experience with bahais, >or I would have lumped you with the stupid cultists who know >in their hearts that they are wrong, and do anything to suppress >discussion about their cult. This is what Bahais appear like to many, many people observing the continuing opposition and reprehensible tactics of the BCCA and some Bahais to talk.religion.bahai. I again appeal to you to intervene to protect the image of the Faith. > >Think about the impression 600 no votes gives... It's not pretty. > Most Usenet proposals receive only 20 to 30 NO votes.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 9:09 AM Subject: Re: 30,000 YES votes? Jason Roberts wrote in message ... >In article <3474ACA7.A84@et.byu.edu>, Robert Craig Harman > wrote: > >> In any case, the hype and campaigning against this would certinly not >> work for talk.religion.bahai since people's feelings for the Baha'is >> are by no means as strong as their fear and loathing of Nazism. > >I disagree, since a similar thing happened the first time this vote came >around. The only difference being that many of the NO votes came from >Baha'is afraid to allow the open discussion of their faith (iow not for >legitimate reasons). I think this will likely happen again. It seems that despite every effort on my part and the other co-proponent, Chris Manvell, not to mention many other people, many, many Bahais seem bent on finding one excuse or another to oppose talk.religion.bahai. Perhaps massive spam emailing and YES vote campaigning SHOULD now be considered? > >-- >Jason Roberts >Bring back Eek the Cat!!! > >My sig is better than your sig! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:59 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation and investigation of the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com Notarius wrote in message <19971121014210.18082.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > > >"Rick Schaut" wrote: > > >>>There is no appeal? > >>There certainly is. I have no idea why Mr. Glaysher has decided to >>raise this here, except, perhaps, because I doesn't want to face up to >>his own misbehavior. > >Good to know that there is an appeal. To whom? The BCCA? > >>Either Mr. Glaysher has a very bad memory, or his statements above are >>outright lies. He was, indeed, informed of those behaviors that would >>result in his being removed from Baha'i lists if he should continue, >>and there is ample evidence of those misbehaviors. > >When was he informed? Never.... How or why would Rich Schaut know anything about this anyway? > > >>Actually, Mr. Glaysher was disciplined by the Coordinating Committee of >>the BCCA. The BCCA consists of all Baha'is who are subscribed to one >>or more of the private Baha'i lists. The BCCA-CC is elected (I believe >>annually) from and by the full membership of the BCCA using standard >>Baha'i election proceedures (secret ballot, no campaigning or >>electioneering, each vote according to the individual's conscience, >>etc.) > >Thank you for the information. >Does this mean that Frederick cannot vote now? >Is the BCCA not answerable to an institution? A completely loose-cannon, as I see it, undermining the UHJ's recent statement to Roger Reini by interferring in the vote on talk.religion.bahai because it became scared that the proposal might actually pass. It's timing struck many Bahais and non-Bahais as too damaging to be coincidental. It's to be noted that Mark Towfiq is on the BCCA, and he was central to marshalling the NO vote during the spring proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I believe it's an act of vindictiveness and desperation on the part of the BCCA. > > >notarius > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation and investigation of the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com Notarius wrote in message <19971121014210.18082.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > > >"Rick Schaut" wrote: > > >>>There is no appeal? > >>There certainly is. I have no idea why Mr. Glaysher has decided to >>raise this here, except, perhaps, because I doesn't want to face up to >>his own misbehavior. > >Good to know that there is an appeal. To whom? The BCCA? > >>Either Mr. Glaysher has a very bad memory, or his statements above are >>outright lies. He was, indeed, informed of those behaviors that would >>result in his being removed from Baha'i lists if he should continue, >>and there is ample evidence of those misbehaviors. > >When was he informed? Never.... How or why would Rich Schaut know anything about this anyway? > > >>Actually, Mr. Glaysher was disciplined by the Coordinating Committee of >>the BCCA. The BCCA consists of all Baha'is who are subscribed to one >>or more of the private Baha'i lists. The BCCA-CC is elected (I believe >>annually) from and by the full membership of the BCCA using standard >>Baha'i election proceedures (secret ballot, no campaigning or >>electioneering, each vote according to the individual's conscience, >>etc.) > >Thank you for the information. >Does this mean that Frederick cannot vote now? >Is the BCCA not answerable to an institution? A completely loose-cannon, as I see it, undermining the UHJ's recent statement to Roger Reini by interferring in the vote on talk.religion.bahai because it became scared that the proposal might actually pass. It's timing struck many Bahais and non-Bahais as too damaging to be coincidental. It's to be noted that Mark Towfiq is on the BCCA, and he was central to marshalling the NO vote during the spring proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I believe it's an act of vindictiveness and desperation on the part of the BCCA. > > >notarius > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:52 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider this further exchange of opinions in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com A Concerned Individual wrote in message <651vf7$nsr@drn.zippo.com>... >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >Please consider the following opinions in your consultation regarding Fred >Glaysher's request for looking into possible "subversion of the Usenet voting >system by Baha'is.", submitted by Rick Schaut. > >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? > >There certainly is. I have no idea why Mr. Glaysher has decided to raise >this here, except, perhaps, because I doesn't want to face up to his own >misbehavior. I committed no "misbehavior" on any of the BCCA's lists that I was subscribed to. That more than eight weeks ago I crossposted a few messages to news.groups because participants there were mounting another massive NO vote in defiance of commonly accepted Usenet voting procedures is not a justifiable basis for the sweeping actions of the BCCA's interference in the governance of newsgroup creation. > >Either Mr. Glaysher has a very bad memory, or his statements above are >outright lies. He was, indeed, informed of those behaviors that would >result in his being removed from Baha'i lists if he should continue, and >there is ample evidence of those misbehaviors. This statement above is not true. I was never informed by the BCCA in any way that I might be removed from the lists. On the list, I never wrote anything that could justify this action. Quite the reverse. > >As for what those behaviors are, I don't think this is the place to go into >them, though most people who've been following Mr. Glaysher's campaign to >get talk.religion.bahai established can probably figure out what some of >them are. What we have here is the usual character assassination, gossip, backbiting, and smear tactics that have been used by many, many Bahais against me for nearly a year.... > >>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? If they were appointed by an institution, they have either violated the terms of their position by this action, or the Bahai institutions themselves must support this tyranny. I can conclude nothing else. > >Actually, Mr. Glaysher was disciplined by the Coordinating Committee of the >BCCA. The BCCA consists of all Baha'is who are subscribed to one or more of >the private Baha'i lists. The BCCA-CC is elected (I believe annually) from >and by the full membership of the BCCA using standard Baha'i election >proceedures (secret ballot, no campaigning or electioneering, each vote >according to the individual's conscience, etc.) They've abused, utterly, their power by this act, in my opinion.... > > >Regards, >Rick Schaut >The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views >and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:52 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider this further exchange of opinions in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com A Concerned Individual wrote in message <651vf7$nsr@drn.zippo.com>... >Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > >Please consider the following opinions in your consultation regarding Fred >Glaysher's request for looking into possible "subversion of the Usenet voting >system by Baha'is.", submitted by Rick Schaut. > >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? > >There certainly is. I have no idea why Mr. Glaysher has decided to raise >this here, except, perhaps, because I doesn't want to face up to his own >misbehavior. I committed no "misbehavior" on any of the BCCA's lists that I was subscribed to. That more than eight weeks ago I crossposted a few messages to news.groups because participants there were mounting another massive NO vote in defiance of commonly accepted Usenet voting procedures is not a justifiable basis for the sweeping actions of the BCCA's interference in the governance of newsgroup creation. > >Either Mr. Glaysher has a very bad memory, or his statements above are >outright lies. He was, indeed, informed of those behaviors that would >result in his being removed from Baha'i lists if he should continue, and >there is ample evidence of those misbehaviors. This statement above is not true. I was never informed by the BCCA in any way that I might be removed from the lists. On the list, I never wrote anything that could justify this action. Quite the reverse. > >As for what those behaviors are, I don't think this is the place to go into >them, though most people who've been following Mr. Glaysher's campaign to >get talk.religion.bahai established can probably figure out what some of >them are. What we have here is the usual character assassination, gossip, backbiting, and smear tactics that have been used by many, many Bahais against me for nearly a year.... > >>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? If they were appointed by an institution, they have either violated the terms of their position by this action, or the Bahai institutions themselves must support this tyranny. I can conclude nothing else. > >Actually, Mr. Glaysher was disciplined by the Coordinating Committee of the >BCCA. The BCCA consists of all Baha'is who are subscribed to one or more of >the private Baha'i lists. The BCCA-CC is elected (I believe annually) from >and by the full membership of the BCCA using standard Baha'i election >proceedures (secret ballot, no campaigning or electioneering, each vote >according to the individual's conscience, etc.) They've abused, utterly, their power by this act, in my opinion.... > > >Regards, >Rick Schaut >The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views >and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:41 AM To: UHJ Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com -- Notarius wrote in message <19971121015618.26338.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > >thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (T Hodges) wrote: > >>I expect the BCCA will not publicly say why they did this unless Fred >>directly asks them. Otherwise they would violate his privacy. > >There are so many principles involved that it is best if Frederick asks them. > >>As to the probable effect on approval of TRB, this is one of the best >>things that could be done to help it get approved. Fred has >>consistently made it difficult to support approval of the newsgroup. > >I look at the decision of BCCA from a much wider perspective than >from the point of view of Frederick. >If Frederick can be silenced, so can others. >I am aware of Fredericks limitations, but also of his courage >in fighting for TRB. >TRB shouldnt be mixed up with Frederick. Makes no sense. > >>Fred had moderated his tone in his last few posts to the baha'i lists >>so those posts probably had no influence toward this action and may >>have made the BCCA decision more difficult. > >Well, it could be foreseen that Frederick would take the decision >as a provocation. Then he would stop moderating his tone. >The decision has created a new potential danger for the TRB vote, >if, as you say, people will look at Frederick and see TRB. >Hope that was not intended. It's impossible to see it as anything else intended. The BCCA clearly intended and has in fact interferred in the voting process on talk.religion.bahai. It is disingenuous of the BCCA to claim otherwise. > >>I don't know the reason for this action but if I was going to take a >>guess, one possibility is that Fred posted a bunch of other people's >>messages from a baha'i list to a public newsgroup without the authors' >>permission. This is pretty questionable behavior and possibly illegal >> - it also could seriously hurt someone who thought their email to the >>baha'i email list was somewhat private. > >I understand these concerns. However, he should then be unsubscribed >from one list at a time. >I object to the total ban, on principle. Once introduced, procedures >can be repeated. >I am also surprised to see the BCCA exercise such power during the RFD. >They are absolutely certain that they will get away with it. They'll get away with it only if there is no JUSTICE in the Bahai Faith.... > >Thanks for your input. > >notarius > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:41 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: Please consider the following in your consultation on the BCCA. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com -- Notarius wrote in message <19971121015618.26338.qmail@nym.alias.net>... > >thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (T Hodges) wrote: > >>I expect the BCCA will not publicly say why they did this unless Fred >>directly asks them. Otherwise they would violate his privacy. > >There are so many principles involved that it is best if Frederick asks them. > >>As to the probable effect on approval of TRB, this is one of the best >>things that could be done to help it get approved. Fred has >>consistently made it difficult to support approval of the newsgroup. > >I look at the decision of BCCA from a much wider perspective than >from the point of view of Frederick. >If Frederick can be silenced, so can others. >I am aware of Fredericks limitations, but also of his courage >in fighting for TRB. >TRB shouldnt be mixed up with Frederick. Makes no sense. > >>Fred had moderated his tone in his last few posts to the baha'i lists >>so those posts probably had no influence toward this action and may >>have made the BCCA decision more difficult. > >Well, it could be foreseen that Frederick would take the decision >as a provocation. Then he would stop moderating his tone. >The decision has created a new potential danger for the TRB vote, >if, as you say, people will look at Frederick and see TRB. >Hope that was not intended. It's impossible to see it as anything else intended. The BCCA clearly intended and has in fact interferred in the voting process on talk.religion.bahai. It is disingenuous of the BCCA to claim otherwise. > >>I don't know the reason for this action but if I was going to take a >>guess, one possibility is that Fred posted a bunch of other people's >>messages from a baha'i list to a public newsgroup without the authors' >>permission. This is pretty questionable behavior and possibly illegal >> - it also could seriously hurt someone who thought their email to the >>baha'i email list was somewhat private. > >I understand these concerns. However, he should then be unsubscribed >from one list at a time. >I object to the total ban, on principle. Once introduced, procedures >can be repeated. >I am also surprised to see the BCCA exercise such power during the RFD. >They are absolutely certain that they will get away with it. They'll get away with it only if there is no JUSTICE in the Bahai Faith.... > >Thanks for your input. > >notarius > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:30 AM To: UHJ; BCCA Subject: Re: Banned from BCCA lists (was Re: Mark ...) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34749D36.520E@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >I'm not sure this thread belongs on news.groups anymore, so I've set >follow-ups ... > >I've also modified the heading because the BCCA does not "belong" in any >sense to Mark Towfiq or any other individual. Also, I don't think it >is either fair or accurate to portray the BCCA's recent action in >banning Frederick from its lists as in any way motovated by "revenge." > >T Hodges wrote: >> I expect the BCCA will not publicly say why they did this unless Fred >> directly asks them. Otherwise they would violate his privacy. They have my permission to state publicly their reasons as long as they post, in full, the three messages I emailed them and their responses to me. I have all of them in one ascii file and would be happy to forward them to anyone interested. I also have the 344 messages post to Bahai-Discuss during the roughly eight weeks that I was on it for anyone to compare to my messages. Linger on that number. Nothing even remotely approaching 344 messages was crossposted to news.groups during the same time period. > >This is as it should be. I would not want to speculate as to the >specific reasons, but can guess as to the kinds of issues the BCCA >might have had to consider in a case like this. There would seem to >be two main considerations: > >1. The rights of the members of a private list whose messages might >be distributed publically without their consent (as you imply at the >end of your posting). Should the rights of individuals to speak freely >(and respectfully) about issues of faith of concern to them be >compromised by the knowledge that anything they ask or opine might be >broadcast and archived on a public forum? The BCCA chose to bring down its axe more than EIGHT weeks after my posting a couple of messages to news.groups. Was it a coincidence that at that moment many people were changing their minds about voting NO? I hardly think so.... > >2. The record of behavior of the individual in question, including, >but not necessarily limited to compliance with guidelines of the >list(s) involved (e.g., reposting of other private mail, behavior on >other non-BCCA fora). There's nothing I ever posted to Bahai-Discuss that justifies such an action. Someone on Bahai-Discuss THREATENED me, and yet she is still on BD. > >It can't have been an easy decision and I don't envy the position of >the BCCA in having to make it. No matter what they decided there was >bound to be negative fallout. I don't presume to judge whether the >decision was "right" or not, but am sure that the committee was aware >that the charge of personal antagonism towards Frederick might be made >and so that would have been "on the table" so to speak -- how to prevent >personal reactions from contaminating the outcome of consultation. > >> As to the probable effect on approval of TRB, this is one of the best >> things that could be done to help it get approved. Fred has consistently >> made it difficult to support approval of the newsgroup. Absurd.... It's action was clearly calculated to inflame the passions of BD participants against the proposal about which much opinion was becoming increasingly favorable. > >Three items: 1) the BCCA decision regarding Frederick was not motivated >by any interest in swaying votes on the talk.religion.bahai proposal -- >as you suggest, this action might actually help the proposal; How do you know? Were you involved in the decision? 2) as many >have suggested, the behavior of one individual should not be the basis >for decision on this proposal -- neither negative reactions to past >behavior, or concern about future behavior -- it's related to principles >of consultation and detachment; The BCCA just squashed all consultation by means of its unjust act. and 3) although it may be obvious, >prayers would help (& not just for one person). Justice, not prayers, are what I want.... > >DZO > >> Fred had moderated his tone in his last few posts to the baha'i lists >> so those posts probably had no influence toward this action and may >> have made the BCCA decision more difficult. I don't know the reason >> for this action but if I was going to take a guess, one possibility is >> that Fred posted a bunch of other people's messages from a baha'i >> list to a public newsgroup without the authors' permission. This >> is pretty questionable behavior and possibly illegal - it also could >> seriously hurt someone who thought their email to the baha'i email >> list was somewhat private. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 8:30 AM Subject: Re: Banned from BCCA lists (was Re: Mark ...) Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34749D36.520E@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >I'm not sure this thread belongs on news.groups anymore, so I've set >follow-ups ... > >I've also modified the heading because the BCCA does not "belong" in any >sense to Mark Towfiq or any other individual. Also, I don't think it >is either fair or accurate to portray the BCCA's recent action in >banning Frederick from its lists as in any way motovated by "revenge." > >T Hodges wrote: >> I expect the BCCA will not publicly say why they did this unless Fred >> directly asks them. Otherwise they would violate his privacy. They have my permission to state publicly their reasons as long as they post, in full, the three messages I emailed them and their responses to me. I have all of them in one ascii file and would be happy to forward them to anyone interested. I also have the 344 messages post to Bahai-Discuss during the roughly eight weeks that I was on it for anyone to compare to my messages. Linger on that number. Nothing even remotely approaching 344 messages was crossposted to news.groups during the same time period. > >This is as it should be. I would not want to speculate as to the >specific reasons, but can guess as to the kinds of issues the BCCA >might have had to consider in a case like this. There would seem to >be two main considerations: > >1. The rights of the members of a private list whose messages might >be distributed publically without their consent (as you imply at the >end of your posting). Should the rights of individuals to speak freely >(and respectfully) about issues of faith of concern to them be >compromised by the knowledge that anything they ask or opine might be >broadcast and archived on a public forum? The BCCA chose to bring down its axe more than EIGHT weeks after my posting a couple of messages to news.groups. Was it a coincidence that at that moment many people were changing their minds about voting NO? I hardly think so.... > >2. The record of behavior of the individual in question, including, >but not necessarily limited to compliance with guidelines of the >list(s) involved (e.g., reposting of other private mail, behavior on >other non-BCCA fora). There's nothing I ever posted to Bahai-Discuss that justifies such an action. Someone on Bahai-Discuss THREATENED me, and yet she is still on BD. > >It can't have been an easy decision and I don't envy the position of >the BCCA in having to make it. No matter what they decided there was >bound to be negative fallout. I don't presume to judge whether the >decision was "right" or not, but am sure that the committee was aware >that the charge of personal antagonism towards Frederick might be made >and so that would have been "on the table" so to speak -- how to prevent >personal reactions from contaminating the outcome of consultation. > >> As to the probable effect on approval of TRB, this is one of the best >> things that could be done to help it get approved. Fred has consistently >> made it difficult to support approval of the newsgroup. Absurd.... It's action was clearly calculated to inflame the passions of BD participants against the proposal about which much opinion was becoming increasingly favorable. > >Three items: 1) the BCCA decision regarding Frederick was not motivated >by any interest in swaying votes on the talk.religion.bahai proposal -- >as you suggest, this action might actually help the proposal; How do you know? Were you involved in the decision? 2) as many >have suggested, the behavior of one individual should not be the basis >for decision on this proposal -- neither negative reactions to past >behavior, or concern about future behavior -- it's related to principles >of consultation and detachment; The BCCA just squashed all consultation by means of its unjust act. and 3) although it may be obvious, >prayers would help (& not just for one person). Justice, not prayers, are what I want.... > >DZO > >> Fred had moderated his tone in his last few posts to the baha'i lists >> so those posts probably had no influence toward this action and may >> have made the BCCA decision more difficult. I don't know the reason >> for this action but if I was going to take a guess, one possibility is >> that Fred posted a bunch of other people's messages from a baha'i >> list to a public newsgroup without the authors' permission. This >> is pretty questionable behavior and possibly illegal - it also could >> seriously hurt someone who thought their email to the baha'i email >> list was somewhat private. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:37 AM To: h-bahai Subject: Dissembling Dear members of h-bahai: More than a decade or so ago, I read somewhere of an Islamic word or phrase that meant something like to dissemble one's faith when having to do so for the good of Islam. The nuance apparently was favorable toward the practice. For those of you more linguistically gifted and trained, do you know of such an Arabic or Farsi term? Does it appear in the Writings? If so, what are the connotations? Is this practice extended in Islam to dissembling in general when thought needed? Any parallels with Bahai teachings? I'd appreciate very much the benefit of any light you might shed on this aspect of Islam, any historical instances, and so forth.... Thank you. Frederick Glaysher fglaysh@hotmail.com ---------- 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 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:00 AM Subject: Government Post to SRB 11-20-97. 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 8:59 AM To: SRB Subject: Government 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 8:59 AM Subject: Government 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 8:45 AM Subject: UHJ contacted I've forwarded my response to Chris' suggestions and have asked them to investigate the BCCA's motives for interferring in the Usenet vote by depriving me of access to the Bahai mailing lists and blackballing me and the proposal. I've crossposted my message to them here on news.groups and intend now to forward regularly any messages that I think will assist them in understanding the unjust onslaught and subversion against the Usenet voting system that Bahais are perpetrating. ---------- 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 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 8:36 AM Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG 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 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 8:06 AM Subject: Re: SRB's RFD Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <3471A603.3231@hotmail.com>... >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. No one interested in comparing the two? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:58 AM Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <650qhh$qum$5@news01.deltanet.com>... >I will say it. Some posts about bahais are not allowed in s.r.b. >the moderators admit it. alt.* is not part of usenet. a newsgroup >about bahais should have the word bahai in the name, so people can >find it when they search on that word. Burying bahai posts in a >newsgroup full of christians is not acceptable. Nobody has proposed >an alternative that is widely distributed (big-8), unmoderated, >focused, and findable by a search on the word "bahai". Don't fool >yourself; a no vote is a vote to not let uncensored talk about bahais >exist where folks will find it. > >And I say it's the same as book burning. "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. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:51 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Jim Riley wrote in message <3505c8aa.326750630@news.pipeline.com>... > >How about omitting the last paragraph completely? I'm all in favor of just dropping the entire paragraph. There's no reason really we even need to mention this in the RFD. Chris, agreed? > >Or maybe drop the first sentence completely and instead say: > > With the exception of soc.religion.quaker, all unmoderated Big 8 > groups discussing religious beliefs have been placed in the > talk.religion.* hierarchy. We continue this convention. > >-- >Jim Riley ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:51 AM Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Jim Riley wrote in message <3505c8aa.326750630@news.pipeline.com>... > >How about omitting the last paragraph completely? I'm all in favor of just dropping the entire paragraph. There's no reason really we even need to mention this in the RFD. Chris, agreed? > >Or maybe drop the first sentence completely and instead say: > > With the exception of soc.religion.quaker, all unmoderated Big 8 > groups discussing religious beliefs have been placed in the > talk.religion.* hierarchy. We continue this convention. > >-- >Jim Riley ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:44 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Ginger Glaser wrote in message <347363DE.2EDC@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >[lots snipped] > >> 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 agree it is obvious, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to repeat the >obvious, especially if it will qualm no votes. And you could always add >"like all other newsgroups" before the "is not endorsed" part if you'd >like. Sure, we can spell it out all the more by adding "like all other newsgroups." > >>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. > >While that seems a bit short sighted to me, if only because I realize my >worst enemy can occasionally have a good idea (ok, VERY occasionally). >But either way conveys the same message, so whatever floats your boat. I prefer your message because it's broad and wide open without containing implicit Bahai battles inbetween the lines.... > >> 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. >> >Fred, you will have to enlighten me as to the nature of this concern, >because the above language means nothing to me, but the terms whipping >post seems harsh. Clarify your concern for me and I will be happy to try >to help with the wording. The phrase "whipping post" was Chris Manvell's. I think it fits quite well what could happen with both the disclaimer and the Bahai conduct clauses.... Essentially, I view the desire by Bahais to have such statements in the RFD as providing a basis for future denunciations and harassment of anyone who happens to say something they disagree with. Both passages in my opinion will be dredge up repeatedly and constantly and thrust in the face of non-Bahais as well as Bahais by the intolerant and indignant.... As an unmoderated forum for all people, trb should not lay the groundwork for any particular interpretation of the Bahai Faith in its RFD. > >> Why should the RFD not make it? There are no valid and honest reasons >> for voting NO. >> >You needed an IMO in front of that. You see no valid reason for voting >NO. There are those out there who are still considering it, and I >wouldn't call their opinions invalid or dishonest. I DO disagree with >them in this case, as the only reasons I can see I don't think outweigh >all the positives. But, for instance, someone who always votes against >unmoderated religion groups, or who believes talk is the wrong heirarchy >for religion groups, certainly has a valid and honest reason to vote >against it. There is no one who has made a tenable case on these two points that I know of. Most, if not all, conversation has conceded these reasons do not apply since trb is named properly. How many people are there that vote NO on all unmoderated religion newsgroups? Ahmmmm.... Disagreement does not always imply dishonesty on one party >or the other. For heavens sake, as a Baha'iyou are willing to believe >that all major religions worship the same God, but not willing to >believe that large groups of people can come to opposite conclusions on >other issues? Can you spell out here more clearly what it is you mean? Like what the usual consensus is on Usenet voting procedure? > >> 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. >> >Um, no,see above. THough I repeat I believe the positives outweigh the >negatives. Do you include political, religious bloc voting as acceptable? > >> 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. >> >that's fine. > >> 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.... >> >Sounds fine to me. I think all those people have done an excellent job >in conducting this discussion. How about yourself? The offer still stands. It would be very helpful to have an impartial non-Bahai as a proponent. And you seem to have a good sense of what Usenet should be about. > >[snip] > >> 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. >> >Well, I like a call for politeness in any group, if only because their >are still a few ISPs out there who will enforce charter provisions. But >I would word it "The Baha'i faith encourages polite discussion and >respectful discussions of disagreements. As such, participants in the >group are asked to avoid threats, foul language and flamewars, as they >may make a number of users of the group uncomfortable". I like this version more than the one in the 2nd RFD. Chris, how about it? Let's use it.... Anyway, even if >you leave out the explanation, there should be some sort of listing of >out of line behavior, if only for those ISPs mentioned above. > >> Ultimately, it seems to me, tinkering with the RFD, like the making >> of books, has no end.... >> >Probably true, but hang in there. Thanks. At this point, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the encouragement.... > >Ginger ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:44 AM Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG Ginger Glaser wrote in message <347363DE.2EDC@pfizer.com>... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >[lots snipped] > >> 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 agree it is obvious, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to repeat the >obvious, especially if it will qualm no votes. And you could always add >"like all other newsgroups" before the "is not endorsed" part if you'd >like. Sure, we can spell it out all the more by adding "like all other newsgroups." > >>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. > >While that seems a bit short sighted to me, if only because I realize my >worst enemy can occasionally have a good idea (ok, VERY occasionally). >But either way conveys the same message, so whatever floats your boat. I prefer your message because it's broad and wide open without containing implicit Bahai battles inbetween the lines.... > >> 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. >> >Fred, you will have to enlighten me as to the nature of this concern, >because the above language means nothing to me, but the terms whipping >post seems harsh. Clarify your concern for me and I will be happy to try >to help with the wording. The phrase "whipping post" was Chris Manvell's. I think it fits quite well what could happen with both the disclaimer and the Bahai conduct clauses.... Essentially, I view the desire by Bahais to have such statements in the RFD as providing a basis for future denunciations and harassment of anyone who happens to say something they disagree with. Both passages in my opinion will be dredge up repeatedly and constantly and thrust in the face of non-Bahais as well as Bahais by the intolerant and indignant.... As an unmoderated forum for all people, trb should not lay the groundwork for any particular interpretation of the Bahai Faith in its RFD. > >> Why should the RFD not make it? There are no valid and honest reasons >> for voting NO. >> >You needed an IMO in front of that. You see no valid reason for voting >NO. There are those out there who are still considering it, and I >wouldn't call their opinions invalid or dishonest. I DO disagree with >them in this case, as the only reasons I can see I don't think outweigh >all the positives. But, for instance, someone who always votes against >unmoderated religion groups, or who believes talk is the wrong heirarchy >for religion groups, certainly has a valid and honest reason to vote >against it. There is no one who has made a tenable case on these two points that I know of. Most, if not all, conversation has conceded these reasons do not apply since trb is named properly. How many people are there that vote NO on all unmoderated religion newsgroups? Ahmmmm.... Disagreement does not always imply dishonesty on one party >or the other. For heavens sake, as a Baha'iyou are willing to believe >that all major religions worship the same God, but not willing to >believe that large groups of people can come to opposite conclusions on >other issues? Can you spell out here more clearly what it is you mean? Like what the usual consensus is on Usenet voting procedure? > >> 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. >> >Um, no,see above. THough I repeat I believe the positives outweigh the >negatives. Do you include political, religious bloc voting as acceptable? > >> 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. >> >that's fine. > >> 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.... >> >Sounds fine to me. I think all those people have done an excellent job >in conducting this discussion. How about yourself? The offer still stands. It would be very helpful to have an impartial non-Bahai as a proponent. And you seem to have a good sense of what Usenet should be about. > >[snip] > >> 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. >> >Well, I like a call for politeness in any group, if only because their >are still a few ISPs out there who will enforce charter provisions. But >I would word it "The Baha'i faith encourages polite discussion and >respectful discussions of disagreements. As such, participants in the >group are asked to avoid threats, foul language and flamewars, as they >may make a number of users of the group uncomfortable". I like this version more than the one in the 2nd RFD. Chris, how about it? Let's use it.... Anyway, even if >you leave out the explanation, there should be some sort of listing of >out of line behavior, if only for those ISPs mentioned above. > >> Ultimately, it seems to me, tinkering with the RFD, like the making >> of books, has no end.... >> >Probably true, but hang in there. Thanks. At this point, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the encouragement.... > >Ginger ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:18 AM To: Cheryll & Wade Schuette Subject: Re: Destruction of Books I have not read your message. Please do not email me directly. -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 3:26 AM Subject: Re: 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. >> > > > So, do you live near that area where the ground-water supply has >been contaminated with arsenic? > >Wade > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:01 PM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Fw: Regarding t.r.b. I can't consider it hot air, Chris.... 691 is very close to 900.... That's history.... 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 > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: Fw: Regarding t.r.b. > Date: Thursday, October 23, 1997 12:25 PM > > 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Traffic Update #2: Topics John A Kuchenbrod wrote in article <62nvht$7m8$1@service3.uky.edu>... > Frederick Glaysher (FG@hotmail.com) wrote: > : More than 3,293 messages have now been posted to alt.religion.bahai > : since April 1, 1997.... > > > > : Incidentally, the RFD now appears on news.groups, > : news.announce.newgroups, www.dejanews.com, and elsewhere.... > > Echoing the voice of others, I haven't seen the RFD on news.groups. Also, > in the daily report by Bill Aten, there is no record of the RFD posting > to n.a.n. I don't know why there is this time-lag on its circulation. It is on my server's list today for news.groups and news.announce.newgroups. I received the posting notice from David Lawrence on the 20th.... And notice it's shown up now just about every place he listed. > > John > > -- > | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | https://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | > | remove -no-spam-'s from address to reply personally | > -- 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 10:02 AM Subject: Bahai UHJ and the vote I'd like to respond to a message by Roger Reini, which I've lost from my server already. He said something about his message to the Bahai Universal House of Justice requesting that they provide Bahais with guidance on not skewing the voting again, or that was the drift of it.... I just don't see it happening quickly enough to help, if it happens at all, though I would welcome it. There may be a tendency for the UHJ to stay out of this kind of thing, as others have suggested.... Also, I emailed them seven months ago requesting whether censorship is permissible in the Bahai Faith and what Bahai Writings support it, if so.... I've yet to receive a response. It appears to me either Bahais are going to vote fairly or they're going to disgrace the Faith again.... -- 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 9:54 AM Subject: UseNet II voting system? What would a voting question or questions look like specifically for the vote on talk.religion.bahai? Can anyone give me a sample or rough draft? I'm seriously considering perhaps it is the way the vote should be handled since 900 NO votes have been threatened.... 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. Any ideas would be most welcomed. -- 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 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Graham Sorenson wrote in article ... > In article <01bcde4f$2b4d4c40$772ab3c7@glaysher>, Frederick Glaysher > writes > >Richard C. Detweiler wrote in article > ><62if79$gqv@nntp02.primenet.com>... > >> > >> As a matter of fact... :-) > > > >Sir, I am unwilling to accept anything from you as "fact." > > Fred... Richard has demonstrated that he has a reality check on "facts" > which you have, lamentably, never shown. 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.... > > -- > Cre@tions Design > https://www.acemake.com/creations > https://www.acemake.com > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk > etc > -- 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 8:36 AM Subject: Re: 900 NO votes threatened Roger Reini wrote in article <344f1273.58225453@news.zippo.com>... > On 22 Oct 1997 10:37:23 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > [clip] > > >The question that keeps arising in my mind is are there > >enough YES votes on news.groups or anywhere to counteract > >such a breach in voting netiquette? It occurs to me this morning that it's illogical and inconsistent for many Bahais to oppose talk.religion.bahai on the basis of netiquette when they themselves violated or would violate the voting process by another massive NO vote.... > > > 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: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:34 AM Subject: Traffic Update #2: Topics More than 3,293 messages have now been posted to alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997.... To give those who have not followed alt.religion.bahai during the last several months some idea of the discussion that has taken place there, I would like to offer a brief list of topics, in no particular order: Soc.religion.bahai censorship Freedom of religious conscience and speech Islam and the Bahai Faith Incident between Muslims and Bahais on IRC Esperanto Maitreya Covenant Breakers (roughly put, excommunicated) Universalist Bahais San-Guardian Bahais (French?) Orthodox Bahais Free Bahais (German?) The Bahai Writings related to all of the above Many, many other threads others might help me remember and enumerate.... Incidentally, the RFD now appears on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, www.dejanews.com, and elsewhere.... -- 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 8:18 AM To: SRB Subject: Fw: Re injustice 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:14 AM To: Bahai 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:11 AM To: Bahai 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 7:10 AM To: Roger Reini; Chris Manvell Subject: Fw: Regarding t.r.b. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- > From: Robert Moldenhauer > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. > Date: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:15 AM > > The Universal House of Justice should have been consulted before the group > was suggested. How can a Baha'i vote for the creation of such a group, > that, if you are right, will have a global impact, without advise from the > House. > > Soc.religion.bahai was created only *after* the House approved of the idea > and gave us the go ahead. Why weren't they consulted about > talk.religion.bahai? How can a Baha'i approve of such a group without the > House's infallable guidance? > > There is no legitimate way we as Baha's can go forward with > talk.religion.bahai until we have advise from the Universal House of Justice. > > 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... > > At 04:57 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the > >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes > >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > > > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... > >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet > >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, > >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming > >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" > >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason > >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do > >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > > > > >[clip] > > > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the > >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is > >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, > >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum > >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose > >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > > > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one > >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an > >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human > >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity > >to test it. > > > >[clip] > > > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about > >a.r.b. > >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by > >opinion or by actual data? > > > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, > >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for > >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls > >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, > >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an > >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on > >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > > > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Ed Price > >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > > > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 7:09 AM To: Chris Manvell; Roger Reini Subject: Re: 900 NO votes threatened > 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/ > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 7:04 AM Subject: Re: 900 NO votes threatened > 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/ > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 3:26 PM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Juan Cole wrote: > Religion is dying off in the industrialized world. [clip] > In China it is not clear that very many people at all have any serious > "religious" beliefs. As a Fulbright scholar to China in 1994, in a seminar at Beijing University, I heard a professor of history state that over 85% of the population has ceased to believe in any type of religious meaning or purpose to human existence.... I might add it was in a classroom that was used as a prison cell for more than 20 professors during the Cultural Revolution.... Why have all these billions of people fled organized > religion? Because they found it coercive. They don't want you to set things > up so that their lives have to be transformed in the way that *you* > dictate. The places where religion still does fairly well, such as the > U.S., are places where religion is in fact recognized in law as a private > activity, unlike Sweden where it is very public and tied to the state. So > the evidence is that the sort of religion you advocate produces irreligion, > whereas the Enlightenment privatization of religion, as in the U.S., allows > it to thrive in relative terms. Life is full of paradoxes. > > cheers > > Juan R. I. Cole > History > U of Michigan 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, October 22, 1997 2:46 PM Subject: Re: 900 NO votes threatened Roger Reini wrote in article <344f1273.58225453@news.zippo.com>... > On 22 Oct 1997 10:37:23 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >Someone threatened 900 NO votes against talk.religion.bahai > >this time a few weeks ago on Bahai-Discuss. I mention this > >now only because it seems others ought to know since the > >RFD has been posted. I think the figure speaks elegantly to > >the fact the problem many Bahais have with talk.religion.bahai > >is obviously more than me personally.... > > FYI, the RFD hasn't yet propagated to the news servers I monitor. I have not seen it yet on my news server either though I received an email from David Lawrence stating he had posted the RFD on Sept. 20th to all the main newsgroups and lists. Guess it moves slowly for some reason.... I have seen it on h-bahai, which he posted it to, not me.... > > 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. 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.... > > >The question that keeps arising in my mind is are there > >enough YES votes on news.groups or anywhere to counteract > >such a breach in voting netiquette? > > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:30 AM To: Bahai Announce 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:27 AM 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:26 AM 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:12 AM Subject: All pointers posted All of the pointers to the RFD for talk.religion.bahai have been posted or emailed 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, October 22, 1997 8:01 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: All pointers posted Can you take care of a.bsu.religion too? I've just finished sending out all pointers.... 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, October 22, 1997 7:50 AM To: Michael McKenny Subject: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai I've posted this to soc.religion.paganism but am not sure whether they'll post it. If you don't see it appear there soon, could you check, but cover your tracks and mine? Thanks.... I'd appreciate your deleting this one too.... ----- 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: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:37 AM 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:24 AM To: youth@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:23 AM To: women@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:23 AM To: teachers@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:22 AM To: singles@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:21 AM To: homeshool@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:20 AM To: helping@bcca.org 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.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 7:17 AM To: AWetherelt@aol.com Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Talk.religion.bahai does not yet exist but is in the discussion and creation stage of newsgroups at the moment. You can read the current messages on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai if you have UseNet news reader capability on your Internet service. If you are in favor of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, you need to watch for the Call For Votes (CFV) in about three weeks and then actually email in your vote in order to help create it. See the RFD on the website 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: AWetherelt@aol.com > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:34 AM > > Dear Frederick > How does one join , talk .religion bahai?. > Regards A Wetherelt ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:56 AM To: Harvey Morgan Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Please do not email me directly. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.announce.newgroups or at ---------- > From: Harvey Morgan > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 8:55 PM > > Why is it that you are proceeding with this issue while refusing to inform > of us whether you inquired of the Universal House of Justice as to its > appropriateness? > > And, why is it that you ignored my plea to do so ? > > > At 03:59 PM 10/21/97 -0400, you wrote: > >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 > > > > > > > Harvey Morgan > Telecommunications Solutions Unlimited, Inc. > 608-831-7800 > 608-831-4999 fax > 608-831-5800 personal > > "...A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the > whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and > functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity... " > Shoghi Effendi, March 11, 1938 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:50 AM To: Richard C. Detweiler Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Please do not email me directly. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.announce.newgroups or at ---------- > From: Richard C. Detweiler > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai > Date: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 4:42 PM > > Criminy Fred - I was trying to help you out. You know, I'll bet > if we were to meet in person without knowing each other, we'd probably > get alongjust fine. I don't know why you insist on being so venomous. > But it sure pains me and is a sad state of affairs. > > FWIW, I have never ever harbored the crass motives to which you > insistantly want to pin on me. > > Your Baha'i brother, > > Dick D. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:40 AM Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Reposted from h-bahai with the permission of Professor Juan Cole: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:09:31 -0400 From: jrcole@UMICH.EDU (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation I agree with both Peter Terry and Mike Furst about contemporary Baha'i administrative practice with regard to issues in freedom of conscience and speech. That is, I agree with Peter that the Baha'i administration appears to be acting like Orthodox Rabbis and with Mike Furst in his views of that. Historically speaking, during the Inquisition the Roman Catholic church denied the freedom of conscience, so that even private remarks could get you tortured. Among the Protestant states that rebelled against this practice was the Netherlands, and the Dutch Republic enshrined freedom of conscience in the Treaty of Utrecht in the 1500s. However, "freedom of conscience" is a very weak right. It is the right to hold private beliefs at variance with public orthodoxies, as long as one does not speak them publicly or beyond certain venues (that is, as long as one does not make them a public cause). Thus, even under a regime of "freedom of conscience," the Dutch Republic allowed the Jewish community to excommunicate Spinoza for his views, and occasionally Mennonites and Arminians were sanctioned, and Catholics and Lutherans had to keep a low profile. In England, where Anglicanism also recognized the "freedom of conscience," George Fox was jailed for preaching the Inner Light on street corners. Protestant "dissidents" (non-Anglicans) were barely tolerated, but only if they did not speak publicly. A similar regime was still in place in the 1770s in Virginia, where it came to Thomas Jefferson's attention that Quakers were being punished by the Established Anglican Church for not having their children baptized. The Enlightenment brought a new and broader right, to freedom of speech as well as of conscience. Thus, Locke had argued that magistrates had no business sanctioning even vocal dissidents from the Anglican church. And the First Amendment insisted that the U.S. government should make no law regarding the Establishment of religion (that is, backing an official religion) or abridging individual freedom of religion, speech or the press. Given that the Baha'i administration conceives of itself as an embryonic theocracy, its policy of allowing "freedom of conscience" but not freedom of speech essentially takes things back to the 1500s and 1600s in the Dutch Republic and England. It is a revocation of modernity and a flight back into the Renaissance and Reformation period. The question is, are current restrictions on freedom of speech consonant with scriptural Baha'i principle? I personally see a contradiction. `Abdu'l-Baha complained about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, saying: "Yet nought has been effected and no advantage has been gained; no remedy has been discovered for this ill, nor any easy salve for this wound. [To ensure] freedom of conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is one of the duties and functions of government (vaza'if va savalih-i hukumat), and is in all ages the cause of progress in development and ascendency over other lands." He adds: "Inteference with creed and faith in every country causes manifest detriment, while justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected." He makes an argument similar to that of Locke, for religious *liberty* (and not just private, limited freedom of conscience) when he says, "In other countries when they perceived severity and persecution in such instances to be identical with . . . incitement, and saw that paying no attention was more effectual, they abated the fire of revolution. Therefore did they universally proclaim the equal rights of all denominations, and sounded the liberty of all groups (lihadha bi kulli i`lan-i musavat-i huquq-i ahzab namudand va azadigi-yi `umum-i tava'if gush zad sharq va gharb)." In order to illustrate the pragmatic benefits of liberty, he contrasts the religious policy of Shi`ite Iran, which was weak and losing territory in the nineteenth century, with that of the British Empire. British administrators, building on a century of thought and law concerning toleration, on the whole developed a policy of impartiality across religious groups. The British, he says, implemented equality and "uniform political rights" for diverse religious groups. Finally, `Abdu'l-Baha affirms that such a policy of allowing equality among the adherents of various religions is not areligious, and can be pursued by state officials who are themselves pious believers, just as the British bureaucrats who foreswore a Christian assault on India were themselves Christians. He seeks to deny any necessary link between freedom of conscience and irreligion or atheism. Note that the example `Abdu'l-Baha gives of the best religious policy is that of Liberal Great Britain of the late nineteenth century, which had granted liberty of religious expression to all subjects. He criticizes medieval intolerance and argues of European nations during the Enlightenment that : "But when they removed these differences, persecutions, and bigotries out of their midst, and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects and the liberty of men's consciences, the lights of glory and power arose and shone from the horizons of that kingdom in such wise that those countries made progress in every direction . . . These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent world." (Above quotes from *A Traveller's Narrative* keyword search at https://SunSITE.unc.edu/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ts-kwicd.html) Now, it may be objected that even if the Baha'i administration has theocratic tendencies, it is after all the steward of a religion and that `Abdu'l-Baha had not meant to tie its hands in making it put up with adherents who openly and publicly spoke their individual views. But in fact `Abdu'l-Baha makes an explicit analogy between the sort of *political* liberty granted individuals in democracies and his hopes for individual rights of free speech even in the religious sphere: "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." (*Promulgation of Universal Peace* p. 197) Note that `Abdu'l-Baha here does *not* limit himself to advocating the "weak" right of conscience only, but openly advocates the liberty of conscience, thought and *speech.* `Abdu'l-Baha did not authorize Baha'i institutions to punish the public expression of individual belief, only "behavior." The attempt to subsume Baha'is' email traffic under "behavior" rather than speech does obvious violence to the distinctions `Abdu'l-Baha was careful to make in saying that polite expression of conscience could not be punished, only infractions of religious law. Moreover, since the Universal House of Justice has no prerogative to engage in authoritative Interpretation, it is not obvious how it could be within its rights to impose its interpretation of Baha'i scripture on an individual adherent and prevent him or her from expressing an individual interpretation, as long as the latter was clearly marked as individual. So, I personally see a rather vast chasm between Baha'i scriptural ideals with regard to liberty of conscience and speech, and current administrative practice that puzzles me deeply. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:37 AM Subject: 900 NO votes threatened Someone threatened 900 NO votes against talk.religion.bahai this time a few weeks ago on Bahai-Discuss. I mention this now only because it seems others ought to know since the RFD has been posted. I think the figure speaks elegantly to the fact the problem many Bahais have with talk.religion.bahai is obviously more than me personally.... The question that keeps arising in my mind is are there enough YES votes on news.groups or anywhere to counteract such a breach in voting netiquette? -- 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, October 22, 1997 6:26 AM Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? Guy Macon wrote in article <62k0c1$i7a$5@news01.deltanet.com>... > In article <62igo0$7rs$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, fran@bernstein.dgii.com wrote: > > > > > >Personally, I would not be bothered by getting a notification > >that another vote was taking place, as long as there was > >not assumption about how I would vote or any campaigning in it. > >An FYI to people who were interested last time seems OK to me. > > Assuming that such emails are appropriate (a big assumption!), > why target YES voters? If Fred is right and a bunch of people > voted NO because of a one sided campaign, aren't those exactly > the folks you want to invite to a discussion in news.groups that > (we hope) will be more balanced? > > If you mail, mail everybody, and invite them all here. Well, that's a good idea.... Anybody willing to email both the YES and NO voters? I won't because it seems many feel I shouldn't. I would suggest a mere pointer to the RFD on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, Chris Manvell's website. -- 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, October 21, 1997 3:59 PM To: Bahai 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:48 PM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Fw: RFD: talk.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? David Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroup posted it, as he does all new proposals to the major lists and newsgroups on the RFD. Sorry if they didn't want it there.... Whatever you think is appropriate.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:39 PM To: Frederick Glaysher 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:22 PM To: chris@baha.demon.co.uk Subject: RFD on your site Looks great! Love that green! I'll get to work on the pointers. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:32 PM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Chris wrote in article ... [clip] > A good example of what can happen is the series of posts by one "John > from Europe" (aka Markovitch etc.). All but one or two of his posts > have been barred from SRB (or so he claims) and it is fairly obvious > why. But, let us say that his posts were polite and well reasoned. But his post don't have to be polite or well reasoned.... ARB is unmoderated.... If people want an moderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, it exists.... 15 to 17% "moderation".... I'd rather hear what John and others have to say and tune them out as I wish instead of having someone else make the decision for me..... > Maybe the first couple would be posted to SRB on the grounds that > 'Abdu'l-Baha praised Esperanto and, as we all know, the Faith (in the > short term) supports the idea of an auxiliary language, but predicting > that later there will be a universal language. I believe Baha'u'llah, > or 'Abdu'l-Baha, indicated a preference for Arabic in the latter case. > However, the auxiliary language has to be chosen not by the Baha'is but > by the governments of the world. It is our job to support the principle > but to remain neutral. > > So where does this leave John? In my opinon, it was quite OK to draw > attention to the existence of Esperanto on SRB but no more. SRB is for > discussions about the Faith and not about Esperanto EXCEPT WHERE IT > IMPINGES DIRECTLY ON THE FAITH. However, there is absolutely nothing to > stop him posting his messages on Esperanto on ARB -- though to date he > has not done so. 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? > ARB also has another role that cannot be addressed by SRB. That is to > give the Baha'is an opportunity to resond to virulent attacks on the > Faith. It is here that I feel some progress can be made -- not with the > attackers themselves as they are almost certainly not interested in what > we say -- in as much as it teaches us to behave in the way Baha'u'llah > expects us -- meeting hate with love, etc. This is an opportunity that > just does not arise on SRB, and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe there is. It distorts and suppresses rational objections, depriving other Bahais of the benefit of non-Bahais' perceptions, which can be very enlightening and interesting.... Fear of others leads to secrecy and an ever-worsening atmosphere.... I agree with you, though, that only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity to engage fully the views and misunderstandings of others.... That's something more Bahais ought to realize, and I have, if others will be fair, been saying it all along.... > > Anyway, I have rambled on enough so will shut up now. > > > BTW, the RFD shoudl be up on > shortly. > > All the best, > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > O SON OF THE SUPREME! I have made death a messenger of joy to thee. > Wherefore dost thou grieve? I made the light to shed on thee its > splendour. Why dost thou veil thyself therefrom? [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html or > my own, embryonic, site . > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:20 PM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Richard C. Detweiler wrote in article <62if79$gqv@nntp02.primenet.com>... > > As a matter of fact... :-) Sir, I am unwilling to accept anything from you as "fact." > Here is some data for you Fred. Before I stopped moderating last spring, > I put together some data from my archives. For the two years I was > moderating I kept all the submittals - both posted and rejected and the > rejection mail. I used that and DejaNews to come up with some pretty > accurate numbers which I passed on to the mods. Unfortunately, I don't > have those numbers but I do have the following from an annual report I > helped put together. The 15-20% number is accurate for the the amount > of spams and rejections for various reasons we would process. "For various reasons": Care to expand on what they were? So, take > the numbers below and add 15-20% for a fairly accurate count of what > came into s.r.b. for the period in question. I don't have any data for > any other time period. > > > This list shows the number of postings to the newsgroup as reflected by > the DejaNews Usenet archive service. Typically the moderators deal with > 15 - 20% more postings which are rejected submittals or spam. 15 to 20% minus 3 to 5% for spam gives us 15 to 17% what? What word should we use? Dear reader, what word would you use? > > Month # postings > ====== ========== > May 1996 430 > June 278 > July 338 > Aug 270 > Sept 438 > Oct 519 > Nov 581 > Dec 373 > Jan 1997 702 > Feb 725 > March 724 > April 745 The several hundred a month for the first four months of this year reflects the extra "work load" for talk.religion.bahai? My, what busy beavers are the "moderators" of soc.religion.bahai.... > > Hope you find this helpful, > > Dick D. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:14 PM To: Henrietta K. Thomas Subject: Re: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? > 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. Thanks anyway.... I appreciate your advice.... > > Take care, > > Henrietta Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:08 PM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Fw: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Chris, can you post this? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- > From: BX-UK ListMaster > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 1:48 PM > > Mr Glaysher > > Baha'i exchange UK is a subscriber-only list on which your direct post > (as of any other non-subscriber) is not welcome - please refrain from > posting to it. Should you wisha message to be considered for forwarding, > please post it to . > > Nicholas Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 20/10/97 21:06 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > 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 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 > > > >Mentor: Chris Stone > >Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > > > > Nicholas J A Sanders > ________________ > BX-UK Listmaster > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 7:33 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: pointers 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: -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai See Chris Manvell's website for a copy of the RFD for talk.religion.bahai: ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 7:27 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: posted copy of RFD Chris, Here's the first posted RFD I've come across, on h-bahai. -------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:06:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: 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. 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 Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 7:14 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? Relax. I'm not going to email the YES voters though I think they should be informed there's another opportunity to vote.... The cards, at the moment, are very much stacked against the proposal, and I just want people to realize that there has already been massive NO vote campaigning in Bahai lists.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- > From: Chris Stone > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 11:49 AM > > 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 6:59 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: RFD posted yesterday I received this yesterday but haven't seen the RFD turn up anywhere yet, have you? Could you put it on your website whenever you do see it and post a note to that effect in arb & news.groups? ------- 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 Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 6:45 AM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Rick Boatright wrote in article <344C3094.667DC2CC@cjnetworks.com>... [clip] ARB gets all the usual spam, porn, and a wild collection of > the usual alt.religion.xxx massive crossposts that have nothing to do > with the Baha'i Faith. If you're referring to the postings from Maitreya it's necessary to acknowledge that he believes his messages are related to the Bahai Faith, whether you do or not.... [clip] > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 6:32 AM Subject: Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai Only 25 to 35 percent of the posts relate in any way to the Bahai Faith? Oh come on.... I acknowledge there is some spam and porn, but a check of dejanews.com shows relatively few.... Are you saying that in your judgment as a moderator on soc.religion.bahai, you FEEL most messages are of the kind that have nothing to do with the Bahai Faith, are the kind you'd usually send back to the sender flat out rejected with a request for revision? That's another matter.... Rick Boatright wrote in article <344C3094.667DC2CC@cjnetworks.com>... > Let's note that a quick count shows that only 25 to 35% of the posts in > ARB relate in any way to the Baha'i Faith. Which is not to say that TRB > should not be created, but traffic justifications should be topic > related. ARB gets all the usual spam, porn, and a wild collection of > the usual alt.religion.xxx massive crossposts that have nothing to do > with the Baha'i Faith. > > A traffic justification of TRB is entirely possible, but Frederick > should compare apples with apples. Certainly if we included in the > numbers below the massive cross-posts, spam, porn, and typical usenet > vague ramblings that the moderators do not post to SRB, the SRB numbers > would FAR exceed the numbers in ARB. Can anyone give us accurate figures for the number of messages rejected by soc.religion.bahai? During the last several months, a good 30 to 40 people have said they believe they've had messages rejected repeatedly.... I suppose you could add them to your count.... > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > The following statistics are the major justifications for creating an > > unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. As stated in the > > RFD, available in full on news.announce.newgroups: > > > > "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." > > > > If we compare the figures for alt.religion.bahai with similar figures > > for soc.religion.bahai, which has existed, I believe, since about > > 1990, we 2,018 messages to soc.religion.bahai from Jan 17 > > to Mar 27, 1997. From Apr 1 to Sept 27, 1997, srb received > > only 2,772 messages.... Alt.religion.bahai, a mere spin-off from > > the discussion for the first proposal, difficult for many to access, > > received 91 more messages over a six month period. > > > > I believe the conclusion is inescapble that an unequivocally > > overwhelming interest exists on UseNet for an umoderated forum > > for the use of all people of all points of view on the Bahai Faith.... > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > See Chris Manvell's webpage for a copy of the RFD: > > > > > > ---------- 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 7:15 PM Subject: Re injustice Posted to soc.religion.bahai: 10-20-97: Clayton Ramsey wrote in article <62gi4b$ek1@itchy.serv.net>... [clip] I know that we are not supposed to expose the > sins of individuals, but how are we supposed to deal with institutional > injustices? It seems like most everything has a political agenda now. What > about grave injustices perpetrated by individuals or groups of > individuals? Can we expose them? > I may seem eager to go in search of injustices to expose. I am. I am > probably too young to know exactly what my contribution to society is, but > this is one possibility. It is the nature of injustice that it renders recognition and discussion of itself difficult at best.... redefining the terms and vocabulary by which it can or cannot be perceived.... Alas, no more can be said.... Indeed, perhaps too much has already been said.... Incidentally, the RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. You can find more discussion of these matters there.... [clip] > Have at it. > > Clayton -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 7:06 PM Subject: Re: injustice Clayton Ramsey wrote in article <62gi4b$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: Monday, October 20, 1997 6:52 PM Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? Brett J. Kopetsky wrote in article <344BCDBF.6C27@cs.purdue.edu>... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > 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.... > > > {clip] > > I don't think it would be a good idea. Just because my email address > appears in a vote statement doesn't mean I ever want to be contacted > about it again. In fact, doing so may just be enough to sway my YES > vote to a NO vote. Right. Why, though, would someone who voted YES once be so upset by being merely informing that another vote is taking place? Personally, I don't share that reasoning, but I understand many hold it.... For me, if I care about something, I don't give up on it a mere six months later.... Hence, here I am.... > > Also, if they have access to the Big 8, they should have access to > news.groups and news.announce.newgroups to see the CFV. They might have access but they're not news, forgive the phrase and no offense intended, newsgroup devotees.... groupies, whatever.... Many of them have emailed me that they've been cut from what's going on for months because they have no access to the alt.* hierarchy and can't read or post to it, have other things to do, etc.... We get real junk mail in our physical and electronic mailboxes everyday.... I'm talking about a select audience that CHOSE to vote and express interest in the subject in the recent past and whose CHOICE was denied by a massive NO vote..... To my mind, there is a difference. What would Aquinas, that clear-minded soul, have thought? > Brett > -- > Brett J. Kopetsky | St. Thomas Aquinas Center > kopetsbj@cs.purdue.edu | Executive Council > https://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/kopetsbj | Secretary/Treasurer -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 6:41 PM Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? Thomas Bellows wrote in article <62glfm$aqm@drn.zippo.com>... > In article <01bcdd9a$720ba880$7d2ab3c7@glaysher>, "Frederick says... > [snip] > > > >I appreciate your sharing your views. I try to answer much of your message > >too > >in my other response to this thread. I think you're probably right that > >usually that's the way the voting list should be used. I wonder, though, > >if the situation warrants an exception.... That's all.... > > I also think it is a bad idea to do what you suggested, Fred. If you yourself > break netiquette, you have nothing to stand on when others supposedly do the > same. Well, now, I suppose that's true.... Is it breaking the rules to run a NO vote campaign in email lists for over three weeks just prior to the posting of a RFD...............? Hundreds of wrongs don't make a right, I know.... I'm merely struggling for what then is the right and acceptable way to proceed when much of the readership on news.groups hasn't read such adamantly opposed messages and doesn't understand and hasn't experienced the vehemence of the opposition.... In my mind I'm saying, let's see minus 156 informed former YES voters, plus maybe two hundred already lined up NO votes, and where does that leave UseNet netiquette, etc.... > > [snip] > >All discussion is banned over there, though, you see.... > >One fast passing message, at best.... > > However, this would not be justification for breaking the established rules of > Usenet. And I'm sure I don't need to mention two wrongs not making a right... Yup, I thought of it above.... What should be done? Any suggestions? > > Doing what you suggested comes almost directly into the realm of campaigning (if > not, it'll be challenged as such), and may spur a severe voting backlash in the > opposite direction you hope for. Well, I haven't done it. I'm asking for advice. And I'm hoping those reading news.groups begin to realize much of the action is and will continue to take place off stage in Bahai lists, where many of the 691 NO votes were organized last time around.... > > Tom -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 5:24 PM Subject: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai The following statistics are the major justifications for creating an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. As stated in the RFD, available in full on news.announce.newgroups: "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." If we compare the figures for alt.religion.bahai with similar figures for soc.religion.bahai, which has existed, I believe, since about 1990, we 2,018 messages to soc.religion.bahai from Jan 17 to Mar 27, 1997. From Apr 1 to Sept 27, 1997, srb received only 2,772 messages.... Alt.religion.bahai, a mere spin-off from the discussion for the first proposal, difficult for many to access, received 91 more messages over a six month period. I believe the conclusion is inescapble that an unequivocally overwhelming interest exists on UseNet for an umoderated forum for the use of all people of all points of view on the Bahai Faith.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai See Chris Manvell's webpage for a copy of the RFD: ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:49 PM Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? Emma Pease wrote in article ... > In <01bcdd4f$a5042b40$752ab3c7@glaysher> "Frederick Glaysher" writes: > > >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.... > > >I don't believe doing so would violate any UseNet voting convention. > > >Any opinions? > > I would not do it. A fairly firm tenet of net etiquette is that > addresses in vote lists either yea or nay should not be used for any > purpose other than verifying that particular vote and that only the > votetaker (or in certain extremely rare circumstances someone > replacing the votetaker for purpose of verification[1]) should mail to > those addresses. I appreciate your sharing your views. I try to answer much of your message too in my other response to this thread. I think you're probably right that usually that's the way the voting list should be used. I wonder, though, if the situation warrants an exception.... That's all.... > > Note that they found the CFV last time so they will probably find it > this time also (and probably vote the same way); however, if they are > the type who hold to the belief above, their former yes vote may > suddenly become an outspoken no and many other people may also decide > to vote 'no' or to 'abstain' who would otherwise vote 'yes'. Yeah, I don't want to make anybody angry. See my other note though about soc.religion.bahai prohibiting discussion of talk.religion.bahai.... > > In other words it is wrong and would be counterproductive. And so I don't want to be counterproductive.... > > Remember that soc.religion.bahai will get the CFV. All discussion is banned over there, though, you see.... One fast passing message, at best.... > > Emma > who holds to that particular tenet herself > > [1] for example the votetaker cannot fulfill his duties or there are > reasonable doubts about the votetaker's probity. I'm not sure if > either has happened since the current setup was put in place. Definitely has happened. Let's hope not.... > -- > \---- > |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster > |_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:32 PM Subject: Re: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? D Landhill wrote in article <19971020174900.NAA24729@ladder01.news.aol.com>... > >It seems to me I should email the people who voted YES last time > > > > > >I don't believe doing so would violate any UseNet voting convention. > > > >Any opinions? > > > I don't belive that it violates any conventions, but it might well annoy these > people. Considering thzt several people last time voted no on the grounds of > dislikeing your style of campaigning, I think you should avoid annoying > potential aupporters. How do you suppose that these people found out aboput > your previous proposal? anyone who reads news.groups is surely aware of your > current proposal. What catagory of people do think voted in favor of your > proposal last time but would be unaware of its existance this time? I don't want to annoy anybody and that's why I'm asking for advice.... It seems to me there's a genuine problem in that many who voted for it come and go from soc.religion.bahai and may very well have left that newsgroup,as many said, because they wearied of the manner in which it is or was run. The massive NO vote campaign may essentially have driven them away, so posting the RFD there again won't provide them with the opportunity to vote again.... I think you're right that anyone who reads news.groups will perhaps be aware at least to some degree about the proposal and the last vote.... I'm still worried that many of the Bahais who did vote YES definitely do not follow news.groups and simply won't hear about it. A whole lot of discussion in the past centered on the fact that many of them have access only to the Big 8 hierarchy, and not alt.religion.bahai at all.... So on both scores, the 157 to 691 vote wins again, in my opinion, in regard to their votes and voices counting for nothing this time around too.... Many of the people who voted YES heard of the proposal on soc.religion.bahai before it officially prohibited all discussion of trb for the sake of "unity." So one RFD blipping across the screen isn't going to receive much attention there.... I only raise this issue because it seems to me, in fairness to those who voted YES, it's one that ought to at least receive some recognition.... In my opinion, they're being silenced again.... I, however, will abide by the consensus, if most truly feel I should not let them know the possibility again exists to vote for an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith.... > > Don A. Landhill > [Posted & Emailed] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:24 PM Subject: RFD:talk.religion.bahai posted I've received a message from David Lawrence stating that the RFD for talk.religion.bahai has been posted. I haven't seen it yet on news.announce.newsgroups or elsewhere. It should show up before long. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 8:45 AM To: Henrietta Thomas Subject: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? Henrietta, Would you consider serving as the votetaker for talk.religion.bahai? 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 don't know if you have the time or every volunteer for voting, but I'd appreciate it. I sent David Lawrence at news.announce.newgroups the final RFD this morning. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 8:38 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Co-proponent? Frederick Glaysher > > 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. Nothing left to do now but vote again, really.... It should be posted again soon to news.announce.newgroups.... > 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. You've said it before and I understand that to be the case.... I believe otherwise.... As long as another massive NO vote hasn't been put together, and I'm not sure it hasn't given Bahai-Discuss and BCCA's manipulating of the medium there lately, I think there's every reason to think it will pass, or Bahais can choose to discredit themselves again.... > > >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. Donald wanted passages from the Writings on speech and so on added to the RFD. He first suggested in March or April. I have viewed it all along and still do as an attempt to manipulate the content. I don't believe it makes sense in the context of an unmoderated group, briefly put.... > > >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. It's a tremendous resource for teaching the Faith.... And I don't see myself as doing anything else.... though others do.... > > >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? Not at the moment.... Let me know if you've definitely accepted. I should post a message probably to the effect.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 7:59 AM Subject: t.r.Bahai: Emailing past YES voters? 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.... I don't believe doing so would violate any UseNet voting convention. Any opinions? -- 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: Monday, October 20, 1997 7:23 AM To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: UVV for talk.religion.bahai? Dear Mr. da Silva: I'd like to ask you to serve as the votetaker for talk.religion.bahai. Are you still willing to do so? I don't really know anything about Usenet II and all of the issues involved there. It seems to me I'm stuck with the way the voting system is set up and actually operating in the conventional way, for better or worse.... Chris Stone (cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu) has agreed to act as the group-mentor. I'd appreciate your help as the votetaker, if you would.... I'm beginning to believe there is a good chance the proposal will pass this time. There have been over 3,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. I've included the most recent copy of the RFD, which I've just sent to David Lawrence for news.announce.newgroups, for you to consider, if you'd be willing.... 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: 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 8:04 AM Subject: Re: Regarding so called "John Markovitch" Frederick Glaysher wrote in article <01bcdaec$e4481ec0$762ab3c7@glaysher>... > poster1t@hotmail.com wrote in article <877063655.8710@dejanews.com>... > > Friends: > [clip] > > > I have contacted concentric.net regarding him and his death threats > > to moderators of soc.religion.bahai and I encourage other concerned > > readers of this newsgroup to do so. > > You're distorting what he wrote. He said "Death to censorship" not to > the moderators.... There's a significant difference. > > If you're so pure and honest, why are you hiding your identity? My mistake, earlier.... I skimmed his message too quickly and missed his threat.... I've posted a message in response to him asking him to refrain.... That still doesn't change the fact of your annonymity.... > > > > > Thanks > > A concerned reader of alt.religion.bahai > > > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 8:01 AM To: Tale David Lawrence Subject: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > 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. -- 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 Proponent: Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 7:48 AM Subject: Group-mentor: talk.religion.bahai Chris Stone, group-mentor for the first talk.religion.bahai proposal, has agreed to serve again this time around.... I'll add his name and email to the RFD. He's worked with a number of proposals and offered excellent support and advice before and has already been quite helpful. Thanks Chris! -- 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, October 17, 1997 7:12 AM Subject: Re: MY DEAD LINE TO SOC RELIGION BAHAI IS OVER ?MY ESPERANTO MATERIALS NEVER PUBLISHED? john markovitch wrote in article <34466DA8.73B3@hotmail.com>... >. Death to bahai Censorship > Death to all Modearators of Soc.religion. Bahai. Fascism. > I am fed up with you all i willtake my revenge. Untill closure of > soc.religion.bahai.facism I will not sleep. Bahais are gainst freeedom > of speech . Bahais if they success they will control you all . > They are bunch of fascist ? Other wise they would not playing games > with me for 4 years. Censorship off Esperanto is against Bahai > materials. I call for Closure of soc.religion.Bahai because violating > freedom of speech. > John. M Esperanto estas la dua lingvo por cxhui, > https://www.esperanto.com I do believe "Death to all Modearators of Soc.religion.Bahai.Fascism" is going a too far.... Mind you, they are not among my favorite people.... Please don't make violent threats against them or anyone else.... Let's all have a sense of proportion.... -- 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, October 17, 1997 7:04 AM Subject: Re: Regarding so called "John Markovitch" poster1t@hotmail.com wrote in article <877063655.8710@dejanews.com>... > Friends: [clip] > I have contacted concentric.net regarding him and his death threats > to moderators of soc.religion.bahai and I encourage other concerned > readers of this newsgroup to do so. You're distorting what he wrote. He said "Death to censorship" not to the moderators.... There's a significant difference. If you're so pure and honest, why are you hiding your identity? > > Thanks > A concerned reader of alt.religion.bahai > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 6:55 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: Re: 5th rough draft: talk.religion.bahai Thanks for the suggestions. I will send a copy to Tale. I appreciate your mention of potential disagreement over dejanews.com. The fact is I HAVE read every single message posted to arb since April 1st, so, if that's all that some people might require, I've done it and would prefer using as accurate figures as possible. Should your name and email be added to end of the RFD as the group-mentor? Enjoy Russia! I'd appreciate your checking in whenever you can. If you have an email address over there, let me know what it is in case I need your advice or something.... Thanks again. Fred Glaysher ---------- > From: Chris Stone > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: 5th rough draft: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Friday, October 17, 1997 3:18 AM > > 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 1997 8:21 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Henrietta Thomas wrote in article <3445b472.4630507@news.wwa.com>... > In news.groups on 14 Oct 1997 10:13:46 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >Henrietta Thomas wrote in article > ><344302da.2418842@news.wwa.com>... > > > That probably would not help too much with your situation, > which is political voting. There really is no cure for political > voting until people stop voting on political grounds. But maybe > if we try to clarify what people are voting on, they will think > more carefully in the future, and that might reduce the level > of political motivation. Alas, I'm more skeptical about the effect of reason on those motivated by political or religious passion.... And that's why, I suppose, I look for structural safeguards of last resort.... The human being, in my estimate, is an evil, irrational creature, barely removed from the most rapacious of animals, and, hence, in dire need of social forms of order and protection.... UseNet manifests all the human flaws.... > > Henrietta -- 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, October 16, 1997 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Traffic update: alt.religion.bahai I finally found a way to view the Xref line of a message I just posted this morning to alt.religion.bahai. I'm a little surprised it's so low but suppose it must be because I didn't start using zippo.com until late May or early June. Prior to that, I was relying on www.reference.com and www.dejanews.com: Xref: szdc alt.religion.bahai:2602 -- 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. Chris wrote in article ... > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >As of today, there have been 3,170 messages posted to > >alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. Estimating five > >percent lost messages, 158, would amount to over > >3,328 messages.... > > I just noticed an interesting thing. Looking at the header of the above > message I see the following line -- > > Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.religion.bahai:3302 > > I checked further and found that the last five messages downloaded were > downloaded were 3298, 3299, 3300 and 3301. (3299 is in my kill file -- > one of the threads on Maitreya -- aka JME). Other recent messages were > all in the high 3200's so I would suggest that that is an accurate count > of messages posted to ARB. > > Can someone else reading this see if the Xref line is left in when I > send this message to Usenet. If not, I will try to remember to post an > update every so often. > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 1997 7:28 AM Subject: Re: Incident with Bahais: More lies webmaster@iranvision.com wrote in article <876945617.30706@dejanews.com>... > After numerous postings in last summer, I came across this article by a so > called "Rachel" challenging my claim of abuse by Bahais in IRC. She has > made a series of accusations which I will respond to. Since the article is > too old I will simply paste it here and follow up with my response: Why bring up this unfortunate incident again? It led to nothing conducive to understanding between Muslims and Bahais before and was fully discussed in July.... I don't excuse whoever "Coolfred" was, incidentally, not me.... It seems to me best to try to create some modicum of respect between Muslims and Bahais instead of just stirring up religious hatred and passion. I've made this point recently to Afshin about his anti-Bahai site of which I clip a few words from one of his messages: >or the truth about the bahai faith please refer to this site: >ttp://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >AfshinAfrashteh He has placed a message I wrote for a different context on his website without my permission and despite the fact that I have asked him repeatedly to remove it. I don't believe the best interests of Islam are served well by such tactics of antagonism. The Quran speaks highly of respect for other religions. -- 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. > > Subject: Re: Incident with Bahais > From: Rachel > Date: 1997/09/15 > Message-Id: <341C29D8.1794@netlink.com.au> > Newsgroups: > soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.ne > wage > COOLFRED, > > To my absolute horror I just came across this: [clip] > > Cheers; > > webmaster@iranvision.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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 1997 7:01 AM Subject: Re: I think I want to quit. Robert W. Phillips wrote in article ... > The Bahia Faith is so uptight(anal retentive) and I am sick of the Soc > Religion Bahia newsgroup removing everything I say. I know I will get > flamed for this but I don't care. I am sick of it. When I read the > stupidities of not being able to hug your friends or read Romance novels > it just blows me away. I think I'll quit. I have every respect for the > Faith, but it is just another stupid method of societal control. Lets get > some intelligence and common sense in this religion. OF COURSE IT IS > ALRIGHT TO HUG YOUR FRIENDS. If you tell me other wise I will think how > stupid. Bob, I know exactly how you feel.... > > -- > bob.phillips@colorspan.com..... > > Look before you leap > -- 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, October 16, 1997 6:59 AM Subject: Re: Marginalized Believers! Mzarg wrote in article <19971016050901.BAA24831@ladder02.news.aol.com>... > Im a Bahai, formerly in good standing. Interested in interaction with other > marginalized Bahais. > Welcome to alt.religion.bahai! -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 9:19 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Co-proponent? 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. 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. 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.... 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. 2) No language in the charter, a la Donald, regarding his interpretation of the Bahai Writings on speech, etc. 3) No redundant disclaimer discrediting trb from the very beginning. 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. Whatever you decide, I owe you a sincere thank you for your many contributions these many months.... Let's keep any followup discussion in private email. Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 8:53 AM Subject: Traffic update: alt.religion.bahai As of today, there have been 3,170 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. Estimating five percent lost messages, 158, would amount to over 3,328 messages.... -- 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, October 14, 1997 8:14 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: 6th RFD: talk.religion.bahai Thanks, Chris, for being willing to enter the fray.... I don't take it for granted.... I hope things will be a little better this time but since I'm now subscribed to all the Bahai lists I know there's still an awful lot of opposition to an unmoderated newsgroup. We'll see.... Let me mention I've emailed you twice by accident now from an address I use only for subscription purposes to have the hundreds of list messages dumped into: fglaysh@hotmail.com. Please email me here at FG@hotmail.com. Sorry, my mistake. I just posted the 6th Rough Draft of the RFD to alt.religion.bahai since we seem to be waiting our turn again on news.groups. I've made a few changes from the draft I sent you. All very minor and mostly in the newsgroups/lists section. Let me know if you have any corrections or suggestions on how to procede.... Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 8:06 AM To: Group Mentors Cc: Chris Stone Subject: Mentor for talk.religion.bahai I'd like to request Christopher Stone as the mentor for the second proposal for talk.religion.bahai. He was the mentor the first time around last January. Since he knows the history of the proposal, issues involved, and so on, I think he'd be the best person this time too. I have contacted him and he has confirmed that he'd be willing now to serve as a mentor again. His email is cstone@math.math.unm.edu Thanks for your help. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 7:20 AM To: fglaysher Subject: 6th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai THIS IS THE 6th 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 PROBABLY IN NOVEMBER. HOWEVER, YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED NOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE RFD ORIGINALLY POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 1997, AND REVISED IT HERE. NUMEROUS 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 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 -- 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, October 14, 1997 7:20 AM Subject: 6th Rough Draft RFD: talk.religion.bahai THIS IS THE 6th 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 PROBABLY IN NOVEMBER. HOWEVER, YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED NOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE RFD ORIGINALLY POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 1997, AND REVISED IT HERE. NUMEROUS 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 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 -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 6:17 AM To: SRB Subject: RFD & CFV: talk.religion.bahai I would like to ask your permission to post to srb the RFD and CFV for the upcoming vote on 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. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 6:05 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Henrietta Thomas wrote in article <344302da.2418842@news.wwa.com>... > In news.groups on 13 Oct 1997 10:39:18 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >Henrietta Thomas wrote: > >> But Mr. Lawrence may not see it that way. If he responded as you > >> suggest to every cry of "foul," the system would become even > >> more unpredictable than it is now. It would be easier just to give > >> tale the authority to create and remove at will, and forget the whole > >> voting thing. You wouldn't even need to write charters; tale could > >> write his own, in accordance with his own vision of what the Big 8 > >> should be. I don't think very many people would like that. Would > >> you? Not really, if you think about it. > [snip].... > > >I was not suggesting a dictatorial paradigm but a benevolent > >monarch, shall we say, intervening only at moments of > >gross social injustice.... There was a point in history at > >which monarchy itself constituted a social advance over > >anarchy and tyranny, about 700 to 500 B.C., if I recall > >correctly.... > > And it has since been decided that some form of democracy > is preferable to monarchy. (I wonder what comes next? - You > don't have to answer that -- strictly rhetorical). Don't get me wrong, I prefer democracy to the anarchy of voting blocks preventing others from having a voice, that's all.... > > >Reliable and verifiable social constructs create certainty, > >justice, and order in a culture. Why not in cyberspace? > > Perhaps because there are no reliable, verifiable social > constructs in cyberspace. We do not know each other > at all -- all we go by is the words we see on the screen > and our interpretations of same. It is very difficult to get > justice under such conditions because the system forces > us to rely on words, not deeds. And words can be twisted > around to mean many different things. Granted. However, I'm talking about blatant abuses of voting procedure, not subtle gradations of nonverbal communication. > > >Perhaps my suggestions aren't the right ones. But the > >problem, which extends beyond talk.religion.bahai, demands > >a solution or remedy. Others might have better ideas. > >To continue to put up with a very flawed voting system > >doesn't make sense to me.... > > Oh, you have the right idea in general. There are many > who agree the current voting system is flawed. And there > has been some talk of trying various solutions. Hopefully, > something will come of this and we may try some new > ideas. It is certainly time for a change. So what step is next.... That's how I feel about it. I'm ready to do something to improve the voting system even if it's only adding my one vote on the right side. What new ideas are they? > > Henrietta > --- > Confused by the noise in news.groups? For an in-depth explanation, > see the Bernstein/McQuitty news.groups FAQ: > https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 7:26 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: 5th rough draft: talk.religion.bahai There are several changes needed now under lists and newsgroups for pointers. --- 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. 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: Monday, October 13, 1997 6:49 AM Subject: Re: UseNet Henrietta Thomas wrote in article <343fc3f9.1538888@news.wwa.com>... > In news.groups on 9 Oct 1997 20:06:52 GMT, bahai@hotmail.com wrote: > [clip] > But it is understandable. Some people have great tolerance > for uncertainty, while others do not. The unstructured Usenet > looks good to people who have great tolerance for uncertainty, > but it can be very intimidating to people with low tolerance for > uncertainty. The uncertainty keeps everyone off balance who > don't know how (or refuse) to play the underlying political games. > This puts power into the hands of people who use uncertainty > to manipulate what is otherwise a fairly decent system. The "few > simple rules" work very nicely for people who like to make up > their own rules as they go along. > > Fred Glaysher has a low tolerance for uncertainty. He wants > to know there will be a remedy if his proposal is voted down > again. Answer: There is no remedy that Fred can invoke. I would explain more along these lines: I've witnessed the hundreds of messages already on Bahai lists about the second vote on talk.religion.bahai and know again that the opposition is motivated by political/religious zeal, showing every sign of another massive NO vote, while last time 157 legitimate NO votes were overwhelmed in just such a manner. One of my mistakes last time was that I failed to subscribe to the private Bahai lists that were apparently used, as the NO vote campaign ultimately revealed, in the way they now are.... So yes, I look, as all fair men have looked in the past, for a court of appeal, a social structure or polity providing rules that cannot be transgressed with impunity.... Something better ought to exist on UseNet. > > Henrietta Thomas > hkt@wwa.com > --- > Visit my experimental charter archive site: > https://members.tripod.com/~ladythomas/index.htm > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 6:30 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Henrietta Thomas wrote in article <343fe1d8.9185986@news.wwa.com>... > In news.groups on 9 Oct 1997 12:20:02 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >I'd prefer to view his power as a final court of appeal when the injustice > >of the majority, history's rife with examples, crushes the legitimate wishes, > >desires, hopes, and ambitions of a minority.... British Common Law > >evolved partly out of similar experience of tyranny, offering the "common > >man," originally the gentry, shelter and refuge from the Crown.... > Henrietta Thomas wrote: > But Mr. Lawrence may not see it that way. If he responded as you > suggest to every cry of "foul," the system would become even > more unpredictable than it is now. It would be easier just to give > tale the authority to create and remove at will, and forget the whole > voting thing. You wouldn't even need to write charters; tale could > write his own, in accordance with his own vision of what the Big 8 > should be. I don't think very many people would like that. Would > you? Not really, if you think about it. > > Henrietta > > > --- > Visit my experimental charter archive site: > https://members.tripod.com/~ladythomas/index.htm > I was not suggesting a dictatorial paradigm but a benevolent monarch, shall we say, intervening only at moments of gross social injustice.... There was a point in history at which monarchy itself constituted a social advance over anarchy and tyranny, about 700 to 500 B.C., if I recall correctly.... Reliable and verifiable social constructs create certainty, justice, and order in a culture. Why not in cyberspace? Perhaps my suggestions aren't the right ones. But the problem, which extends beyond talk.religion.bahai, demands a solution or remedy. Others might have better ideas. To continue to put up with a very flawed voting system doesn't make sense to me.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 6:11 AM Subject: Re: Afshin's Islam site nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in article <876599532.16217@dejanews.com>... > In article <01bcd63a$e617d4e0$772ab3c7@glaysher>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > I quoted the article exactly as it appeared on the newsgroup. That was > not the first time you had said such things so spare me the out of > context speech. The article, as you quote it, appears on your website, not now on the newsgroup to which I posted it.... To claim that it is not out of context does not make sense to me. Again, please remove it. I neither support your views on Islam nor the Bahai Faith. .. As I said, it was copy and pasted exactly as it appeared > without any deletions or additions. .Many, many bahais and non-bahais > have accused you of being a racist and you are. You have a hatred for > iranians and everyone knows it. Only SOME Bahai Iranians.... There's a difference in my mind.... Maybe in the future you should be careful > with what you say in public. Maybe, as some Muslims have told you, instead of stirring up religious hatred between Muslims and Bahais, you should do something more productive with your time.... And one more note..when you have a history > of posting other people's private emails on the newsgroups don't go > crying when others post your public newsgroup articles on their > web-sites. Posting, in self-defense, Bahai's "private" hate mail to me, accusing me of various things and attempting to intimidate me into silence is significantly different from posting a message on a website and leaving it there week after week, fobbing it off as supporting your own views.... Further, on a newsgroup, the message disappears before long; on your website it's just sitting there without my intention or permission.... Incidentally, I've received some more hatemail this morning.... I'd repost it but I guess I'm supposed to endure any ignorant tripe from Bahais with impunity.... Instead I've chosen a new method of "blocking" any further messages from the individual on Bahai-Discuss.... > > For the truth about the bahai faith please refer to this site: > > https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > > Afshin Afrashteh > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 6:03 AM Subject: Re: pointers I'll need then the subscription address for Uk Bahai Exchange to put in the RFD. -- 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. Chris wrote in article ... > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >I'm unable to find on my news server a.bsu.religion > >and uk.bahai.exchange. Perhaps they will have to > >be dropped from the list of newsgroups to receive > >pointers. > > UK Baha'i Exchange is an e-mail forum like Baha'i-Discuss. I am happy > to post a pointer there. a.bsu.religion definitely does exist and, > again, I am more than happy to post a pointer there. > > 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: Saturday, October 11, 1997 8:26 AM Subject: 6th Rough Draft? It seems we're in line waiting for the next round of newsgroups to pass through news.announce.newgroups and news.groups.... While we're waiting three weeks or more, we might go ahead with the 6th rough draft. Any objections? I've polled most of the lists news.groups and could revise that section. -- 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:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 8:05 AM To: Chris Stone Subject: talk.religion.bahai #2 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.... Perhaps it's more controversy than you want to get involved with, and it promises already to be probably a stormy vote, what with Bahai lists being used again to attack it. Still, if you'd be willing to, I'd appreciate it. There have been over 3,000 messages on alt.religion.bahai since the 1st of April, from a wide variety of points of view. I'm trying to base arguments for talk.religion.bahai largely on the traffic and have, by and large, by universal agreement, allowed the censorship issue to fade into the background a little for strategic reasons.... I understand if you prefer not getting involved.... Fred Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 7:49 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" -- 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. [clip] > >I believe there is. And it's based on what British Common Law was > >originally--the perception of what is just or unjust by the common > >subjects of the crown.... Common law looks for what is traditional > >precedent in similar cases--case history, the lawyers call it. Surely, > >with the UseNet voting process, a body of case history has been > >built up over the years, stormy and full of upheavals as it may be.... > > Nope. "Law" in whatever form is based on the ability to enforce it; no > enforcement, no "law". It seems to me you might consider the suggestion of someone that there are laws that merely have, from the very beginning, "moral force," and are understood to be laws that shall not be enforced, in a sense.... UseNet regulations are in that kind of category, I believe.... > -- > --- Aahz (@netcom.com) > > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> https://www.bayarea.net/~aahz > Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het > > "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been > searching for evidence which could support this." -- Bertrand Russell > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 7:38 AM Subject: Re: Afshin's Islam site nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote in article <876525941.834@dejanews.com>... > Dear Frederick Glaysher, > > You wrote me an email requesting I take out your newsgroup posting from > my site. I replied to you in EMAIL that a newsgroup posting is public > information. You, yourself had said so many times previously. Now, by > chance browsing of the newsgroups after a long absence I have noticed > that you took that private email of mine and posted it on the newsgroups. > All I have to say to you is that I finally agree with your bahai > detractors. You are one seriously screwed up individual. You want me to > remove a public newsgroup posting from my web site and you write an email > to me demanding it and saying that "I did not give you permission" yet on > the other hand you publish an email which is an acknoeldged private > medium without my permission on the newsgroups. I did not say anything > bad and stand behind my original stand. What I am extremely angry about > is your double standards and screwed up logic. Go see a shrink buddy. If > I were a bahai I would be ashamed of you too. > > Afshin Afrashteh > > For the truth about the bahai faith please go to this site: > > https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > > What you seem to be saying in my opinion is that you may take out of context any message you wish from alt.religion.bahai or elsewhere, place in the context of your Islamic hate site, and deny the valid request of the author for its removal, blaming him for defending himself.... -- 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, October 09, 1997 8:52 AM Subject: Followups to arb & news.groups I asked group-advice@isc.org for an opinion on crossposting all messages to both arb and news.groups. Here's the reply: >My opinion is that it should generally depend on what the newsgroup wants >and if anyone there objects to the crossposting of the traffic. In >general, no, I don't think it does a lot of harm provided that people >don't start following up only in alt.religion.bahai where their comments >may not be seen and taken into account. >Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) It makes sense that all posts should appear in both news.groups, so I guess there's no official opposition or impropriety in doing so. It should make it less likely to miss any of the discussion, though probably many people will want to jump back and forth on both newsgroups just to be sure they're reading everything. -- 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, October 09, 1997 8:23 AM Subject: Re: Can a Bahai apply for World Passport of New World Order? john wrote in article <343BBCF1.4507@karot.com>... > > A Bahais is World Citizen and Bahai must always [obey] the law of the land > they live in [......] please get them a world passport so they can have > legal status in that country without fear of being illegal. > https://www.worldcitizen.org > What of the "law of the land" on UseNet and UseNet voting? Apparently, Bahais are free to abuse it.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 8:15 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Henrietta Thomas wrote in article <343b359d.2688084@news.wwa.com>... > In news.groups on 7 Oct 1997 12:59:18 -0500, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) > wrote: > > >In article <01bcd31f$629f8680$772ab3c7@glaysher>, > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>David Lawrence does have the authority to overturn a vote and has > >>done so in the past. > > > >Nope. He only has the *ability* to refuse to send out newgroup messages > >for a vote that has passed. > > And that is what gives him "life or death" power over newsgroup creation. I'd prefer to view his power as a final court of appeal when the injustice of the majority, history's rife with examples, crushes the legitimate wishes, desires, hopes, and ambitions of a minority.... British Common Law evolved partly out of similar experience of tyranny, offering the "common man," originally the gentry, shelter and refuge from the Crown.... > > Henrietta Thomas > hkt@wwa.com > --- > Confused by the noise in news.groups? For an in-depth explanation, > see the Bernstein/McQuitty news.groups FAQ: > https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 8:06 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Eli the Bearded wrote in article ... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Peter da Silva wrote in article > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >David Lawrence does have the authority to overturn a vote and has > > > >done so in the past. > > > Nope. He only has the *ability* to refuse to send out newgroup messages > > > for a vote that has passed. > > Doesn't that amount to essentially the same thing? System administrators > > What about 'no' vote ballot box stuffing? I believe the context was my concern for exactly that abuse of the UseNet voting system. Of course, the context was also the last vote for talk.religion.bahai and my belief that similiar opposition to it this time has already begun to form on private Bahai lists, apparently as it did the first time though I was largely unaware of it since I did not subscribe to any of them then. It seems to me that David Lawrence is justified in issuing a group formation command under such circumstances for talk.religion.bahai or any other group that received an overwhelming number of NO votes if UseNet general opinion supports him. Such consensus constitutes, I think, something approximating "common law" for UseNet. There's both case history based on experience and precedent or tradition that's well established.... > > Elijah > ------ > ask Michael Handler how the rec.music.white-power vote is coming along > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 8:00 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Eli the Bearded wrote in article ... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Peter da Silva wrote in article > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >David Lawrence does have the authority to overturn a vote and has > > > >done so in the past. > > > Nope. He only has the *ability* to refuse to send out newgroup messages > > > for a vote that has passed. > > Doesn't that amount to essentially the same thing? System administrators > > What about 'no' vote ballot box stuffing? I believe it was the NO voting that I had in mind. It's the most egregious form of voting abuse on UseNet. And of course the context I'm referring to is the first vote on talk.religion.bahai and my concern that the same massive NO voting seems to be forming on private Bahai lists already.... Under such situations, not only for talk.religion.bahai, I believe it would be fair and just for David Lawrence to refuse to issue a group formation command and applauded by most fair-minded people on UseNet.... Further, such consensus and actions would constitute, in my opinion, case history and precedent approaching something analogous to UseNet "Common Law." > > Elijah > ------ > ask Michael Handler how the rec.music.white-power vote is coming along > -- 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, October 09, 1997 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Re Usenet Newsgroups me wrote in article <61haab$rvm@drn.zippo.com>... > In article <01bcd199$3a4604c0$822ab3c7@glaysher>, "Frederick says... > >What of lurkers? Many, many people have lurked on > >alt.religion.bahai, apparently for even long periods of time, > >judging from their own comments on Bahai-Discuss or Bahai-Studies. > >Such people are indeed using the newsgroup, for whatever reasons. > >Many of them, by their own witness, then plan to vote NO in order > >to prevent its formation yet have used it, in my opinion.... > > You silly, silly man. > > What of lurkers? Something wrong with lurking? Stop making stupid points and > focus on the *positive*, like you've been told repeatedly! My point about lurkers was that they too are using alt.religion.bahai, are part of the traffic on it despite the fact that the evidence of their posting does not exist, except perhaps on one of the Bahai lists.... You seem to be a good representative of the species.... hiding behind annonymity.... -- 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:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 7:15 AM To: SManeck@berry.edu Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai A weak moment, perhaps. A Who's Next Moment? I originally contacted h-bahai merely thinking it might be a list on which I should post a "pointer" to the RFD, when the time comes in the next few weeks, if acceptable the moderators. Someone has written to the UHJ regarding talk.religion.bahai, and I felt others might find that interesting, given the overall context.... Anyway, just delete it. I suppose it's not really appropriate to h-bahai and will seem too obscure to many. ---------- > From: Susan Maneck > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: Bill Garlington ; jrcole@umich.edu; motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu > Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:12 AM > > Dear Fred, > > I am a little confused as to why you are posting this message here. > It looks like you are referencing something are list members would > not likely have access to since most do not subscribe to Bahai > Discuss. Are you trying to provide information as to how to access it > through Usenet? If so you may have to be more specific. I don't think > everyone understands Usenet protocols. > > Susan Maneck > Moderator > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (14 lines) ------------------ > > A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the > > Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the > > Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on > > talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this > > development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although > > the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private > > Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 7:04 AM To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: Afshin's Islam site ---------- > From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: Messages purported to have been by me.... > Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:46 PM > > > > Dear Sir, > > You more than anyone should know that usenet is public forum. Anything you > say there is public information. Period. Thank You. It may be public, and yes I've said so, but the context you've given my message is distorting it into something I did not intend, and object to.... It would be exemplary of the best values of Islam for you to remove it from your website as I have requested, and request again.... > > 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. > > > > > -- 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, October 08, 1997 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Afshin's Islam site ---------- > From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Re: Messages purported to have been by me.... > Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:46 PM > > > > Dear Sir, > > You more than anyone should know that usenet is public forum. Anything you > say there is public information. Period. Thank You. It may be public, and yes I've said so, but the context you've given my message is distorting it into something I did not intend, and object to.... It would be exemplary of the best values of Islam for you to remove it from your website as I have requested, and request again.... > > 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. > > > > > -- 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, October 08, 1997 6:33 AM Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai Dave Ratcliffe wrote in article <343dc07a.333407212@news.microserve.net>... > In <01bcd315$343e3fc0$772ab3c7@glaysher>, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > -A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the > -Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the > -Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on > -talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this > -development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although > -the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private > -Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. > > And this is important because...... ? Perhaps somebody else could respond to your question.... > > > -- > Dave Ratcliffe > dave@frackit.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in article <61cu6v$l2m$5@news01.deltanet.com>... > In article <07A9jHAsfeM0EwNy@baha.demon.co.uk>, Chris@baha.demon.co.ukSPAMGUARD wrote: > > > >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Jason Roberts > > wrote > >>Deja news does _not_ archive all posts to a group. [clip] > > Also, DejaNews does *not* keep every post. (don't get your hopes up > for making the a.r.b traffic even higgher, Fred, read on) Things that > never get searched on tend to be dropped early. Of course, a.r.b > gets searched on a lot, so no posts are dropped from there. Okay, Guy, you've read my mind! But I'm only thinking of a "safe" 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, while I believe probably a lot more have been lost.... -- 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, October 07, 1997 5:12 PM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" - Christopher Biow wrote in article <344160a1.65129438@snews.zippo.com>... > Don Croyle wrote: > > >Law exists only where there is at least a threat of force to back it. > > Not true. Many US laws are prominently advertised as not being enforced, > and are present only for their moral force. And this "moral force" is what I'm saying is efficacious about UseNet consensus and opinion on voting guidelines. The world had to witness numerous invasions before governments were willing to take action in Desert Storm.... > > >Custom and precedent evolve into law only when there are Authority > >Figures(TM) with the ability and willingness to hang you if you > >violate them. No such authorities exist in Usenet. > > Let's see... > Legitimate authority? Tale adds and drops newsgroups according to UVV > results. His legitimacy comes from admins who respect him. > Referent authority? Various FAQ and group-advisors are taken quite > seriously. > Coercive authority? Cancelbots, Dave the Ressurector, UDPs, admins taking > action against users, admins aliasing rogue sites. Thanks for thinking of so many examples.... All that does count for something significant in terms of creating order on UseNet, motley and tulmultuous as it may be.... > > >... > > >Group-mentors offers non-binding advice. The UVV counts votes. > >Neither has any power beyond what people choose to give them. > > The US Constitution has no power beyond what people choose to give it. Our > rules may not have as great an authority behind them, nor are they as > rigorously enforced, but I'd say that they are arguably within the > semantics of the English word "law". And further there is a body of "case" law, precedents that cannot be ignored, that have been built up with time and experience, as with formal law.... > -- 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, October 07, 1997 4:58 PM Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in article <343a6977.44192185@news.zippo.com>... > On 7 Oct 1997 11:36:04 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the > >Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the > >Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on > >talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this > >development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although > >the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private > >Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. > > An observation -- any word on when the RFD may be posted? > > Another observation -- I don't think this will have any immediate > impact on the discussions. Let's proceed with them in a calm, cool > and collected manner. Agreed. Can you get them to cool down in Bahai-Discuss, especially the person threatening me? I emailed the Bahai Computer and Communications Association (BCCA), but they ignored my request to contact her.... You're probably right that it's going to take the Universal House of Justice to calm those people down enough to think rationally about the UseNet voting system.... I wash my hands of posting or trying to defend talk.religion.bahai over there anymore.... > > > 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: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 4:56 PM Subject: Re: soc.cilture.bahai always censored Esperanto Intrnational Language ?We are happy of alt.religion.Bahai? Roger Reini wrote in article <343a1f7c.41076201@news.zippo.com>... > It appears that the writings are silent on the matter of trolls.... Define troll for me, please, in the computer world sense.... > > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 4:46 PM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Peter da Silva wrote in article <61dt9m$67g@bonkers.taronga.com>... > In article <01bcd31f$629f8680$772ab3c7@glaysher>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >David Lawrence does have the authority to overturn a vote and has > >done so in the past. > > Nope. He only has the *ability* to refuse to send out newgroup messages > for a vote that has passed. Doesn't that amount to essentially the same thing? System administrators will only, or usually only, pick up a new newsgroup if it has passed through the voting procedures of the group-mentors and the UVV. If an appallingly unjust vote takes place, as some have in the past, and he refuses to send out the newgroup creation message, that basically reverses it, doesn't it? It would be interesting to know exactly how many times he has done that and under what circumstances. Also, to what extent was it felt by most participants to have been the right decision--receive with acclamation or boos.... > -- > 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 > ObQuote: > "If it's not real, WHY DOES IT TAKE UP DISK SPACE?" - bev. wednesday@tezcat.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:28 AM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Afshin's Islam site Sent to Afshin at :https://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/index.htm 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 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:28 AM Subject: Afshin's Islam site Sent to Afshin at :https://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/index.htm 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 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:19 AM To: afrashteh@geocities.com Subject: Messages purported to have been by me.... 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:12 AM To: Bruce Limber Subject: Re: Presenting only half of the picture Please do not email me directly. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 8:40 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Don Croyle wrote in article <86oh52o1ev.fsf@gelemna.ft-wayne.in.us>... > "Frederick Glaysher" writes: > > > I believe there's more involved in law than that. Law defines social > > boundaries and custom, decency and civilization, barbarity and > > crime.... Though the social boundaries of Internet are international > > and no one culture can or should define what is acceptable behavior, > > norms do and have come to exist, felt by many. Law, rules, > > regulations codify that felt perception of normality and provide > > protection for the majority against the aberrant ones who lack a > > social conscience. The group-mentors and the UVV are as close to an > > authority as UseNet could have and have attempted and provide some > > degree of rational guidance in the face of the irrational forces > > within human beings of any culture that are always threatening to > > spin out of control.... This to me, in a layman's sense, is the > > basis of British Common Law and ought to evolve, I think, into > > UseNet Common Law. While there may not be a role for force, such as > > a police force, there are individuals who have gone too far on > > UseNet already and have quite literally and properly found the > > police at their door. > > Law exists only where there is at least a threat of force to back it. > Custom and precedent evolve into law only when there are Authority > Figures(TM) with the ability and willingness to hang you if you > violate them. No such authorities exist in Usenet. David Lawrence does have the authority to overturn a vote and has done so in the past. After the RESULTS were posted on talk.religion.bahai, 157 to 691, I immediately emailed him asking him to do so. Although I never heard back from him, he could have. Should the second RESULTS be the same, I will turn to him again as the only authority, court of appeal, if you will, that is out there, other than the general conscience of all users of UseNet.... > > Basically, you can do whatever you can do. The system rewards > technical ability, persuasive writing and longevity, and is more > concerned with how things are than abstract ideas of how things ought > to be. > > Group-mentors offers non-binding advice. The UVV counts votes. > Neither has any power beyond what people choose to give them. I believe though that with time and experience both the group-mentors and the UVV have acquired positions of authority on many matters relating to UseNet. This process parallels, to my mind, that evolution of British Common Law early on. System administrators do listen to the RESULTS of UVV voting and do act upon it. That can not be ignored and constitutes real authority and power in my opinion, both of which should be more formalized by an officially voted upon document similar to Joe Bernstein's "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting." I propose it: Get Joe Bernstein to write a new draft, or someone else, and let's have a UseNet wide vote on it as a new Common Law UseNet Constitution.... > -- > I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready > to make the commitment. > -- 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, October 07, 1997 8:29 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Guidelines"? (was Re: 3rd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai) Peter da Silva wrote in article <61d7r4$sa3@bonkers.taronga.com>... > In article <3515efe9.345829736@news.pipeline.com>, > Jim Riley wrote: > >Jim Riley wrote: [clip] > >I did not prejudge Mr.Glaysher. I did not organize a No campaign > >against his proposal. > > It's pretty clearly documented that other people did. > > I don't *care* if he's a nut. I don't care if this group exists. It should > be obvious by now that I think he's a really bad proponent. That's not the > point. The point *I'M* getting at is that when people feel they can assign > any damn meaning they want to a vote you're feeding bad information into a > system that was never designed for it, and that has been patched to within > an inch of its life. I've tried to get the system changed, and it's gotten > too fossilized for that. > > The only thing left is to try and stem the tide of bogus NO votes by letting > people know why they're bogus. To my mind, this is basically all I've tried to do.... Let others know the NO votes are bogus and why.... And hope people will care enough to vote YES.... [clip] > > >I think that net.* is a great idea. I even suggested that it find a > >place for Mr.Glaysher - of course your rules for cross-posting within > >and without of the hierarchy will need to be relaxed. > > They apply to all groups and all topics, not just Baha'i. > > There's a BIG difference between saying "nobody can do X" and saying "YOU > can't do X". > > In fact, the way things are going, there really needs to be a safety-valve > unmoderated USENET group for every moderated one, just to have a place you > can legitimately tell people like Mr. Glaysher to go, other than hell. I do conceive of talk.religion.bahai as being a "safety-valve" against the very real censorship that well over thirty individuals other than myself have now said that they too have experienced on soc.religion.bahai. I just happen to be the person who is not going to walk away from it and pretend it didn't happen, shrugging his shoulders.... > > (and no, alt.* and net.* aren't answers, beacuse they're not part of Usenet) > > -- > 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 > ObQuote: > "If it's not real, WHY DOES IT TAKE UP DISK SPACE?" - bev. wednesday@tezcat.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:53 AM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... ---------- > From: Nancy S Damren > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM > > Dear Mac, > > (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on soc.religion.bahai > and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) > > That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would > appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's > going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, > myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's > language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, which > seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. > > Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could easily > conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he says > it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real > objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to provoke > argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. > > For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the > subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. > > MUch love and greetings to all, > > Nancy Damren > ladyvadr@juno.com Threatening hatemail follows: ---------------- > From: Nancy S Damren > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages from > you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, 1997. > > I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and > inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send word > that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of > Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing in > such a fashion. > > Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, regardless > of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith has > cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many others. > > You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I must > request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in the > future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will > result in notification of both my email service and yours of your email > abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. > > You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from an > Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. This > threat is real. > > Nancy Damren ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:36 AM To: Bahai Discuss; Bahai Studies; h- bahai Subject: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:36 AM Subject: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:27 AM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Re: Background to letter to House ------- > From: Roger Reini > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Background to letter to House > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:48 PM > > 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. Jonathan Grobe, a group-mentor at Duke, created alt.religion.bahai. I believe you're mistaken about his using a pseudonym. I don't recall seeing any post by him on news.groups to that effect. > > 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 2:49 PM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) Roger Reini wrote in article <3438D423.401@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote in article > > <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > > [snips for space] > > > > Someone on Bahai-Discuss wrote: > > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > > > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > > > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > > > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > > > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > > > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > > > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > > > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > > > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > > > undermine its institutions, etc. > > > > fglaysher wrote: > > None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH > > Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, > > have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by > > the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, > > and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the > > above, and so do Bahais.... > Roger Reini wrote: > Let us set aside the issue of censorship for now, for there are other > newsgroups available for posting articles one believes have been > unjustly censored. One of those forums is alt.religion.bahai. > > Now, one may argue that a.r.b is not that well-propagated, that the > forthcoming talk.religion.bahai proposal will lead to a better > propagated group. That's a reasonable argument, one I urge us to > discuss fully. Given the traffic of over 3,000 messages to alt.religion.bahai in 6 months, there's undeniably an interest among users of UseNet for talk.religion.bahai. The problem is that many Bahais give precedence to their fears even to the point of knowingly violating the commonly accepted conventions of UseNet voting. It seems to me such an attitude violates too very basic beliefs articulated in the Bahai Writings about honesty, justice, fairness, respect, etc.... All the basic virtues that supposedly mean something to Bahais, speaking as a Bahai.... If all that doesn't constitute close-minded intolerance and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.... People are being rigid and dogmatic and just saying to hell with UseNet injunctions not to vote for political or religious reasons.... > > > > > > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > > > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > > > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > > > > It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS > > FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to > > soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, > > ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago > > and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > The voting process does have its difficulties, as the news.groups > regulars can certainly attest to. And this is why I have increasingly come to feel there should be a system where the group-mentors and the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers can consult and override, based on precedent and custom, common law, if you will, egregious breaches of the usual voting practices. Again, I feel Bahais are undermining the international "governmental" system of UseNet and that that is contradictory to the Bahai teachings to obey and follow the established government.... > > > > > > > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > > > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > > > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > > > not to let this clash become acrimonious. > > > > I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between > > fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the > > consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of > > speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose > > talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: > > What I said above was merely my opinion. Personally, I would not > categorize those who oppose the t.r.b proposal as "fundamentalist > fanatics". The term "fundamentalist fanatic" is an emotionally charged > term, one which threatens to divert this discussion into unproductive > bickering. That's something none of us need. Yes, it is emotionally charged. As you know from reading what's been on Bahai-Discuss, not only for me. To avoid mere bickering I've tried and am trying seriously to discuss the principles that should influence voting on a UseNet proposal. I hope more moderate and sensible voices will begin to be heard on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. > > I'm beginning to question whether or not t.r.b can ever be a successful > proposal because of the breaking down of the voting process. Would > Usenet 2 have an enforceable voting system? (I haven't been following > the Usenet 2 discussions -- if anyone can point me to documents > describing Usenet 2, that'd be fine). It's important to realize why and who is breaking down the voting process. UseNet II is a dream and a phantasm at this point, if it's ever established.... A pratical answer does not lie in that direction for this vote on talk.religion.bahai. Bahais need to recognize that voting NO constitutes not an expression of their conscience but a denial of it to others.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 2:30 PM Subject: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) Roger Reini wrote in article <3438D423.401@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote in article > > <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > > [snips for space] > > > > Someone on Bahai-Discuss wrote: > > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > > > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > > > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > > > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > > > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > > > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > > > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > > > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > > > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > > > undermine its institutions, etc. > > > > fglaysher wrote: > > None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH > > Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, > > have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by > > the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, > > and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the > > above, and so do Bahais.... > Roger Reini wrote: > Let us set aside the issue of censorship for now, for there are other > newsgroups available for posting articles one believes have been > unjustly censored. One of those forums is alt.religion.bahai. > > Now, one may argue that a.r.b is not that well-propagated, that the > forthcoming talk.religion.bahai proposal will lead to a better > propagated group. That's a reasonable argument, one I urge us to > discuss fully. Given the traffic of over 3,000 messages to alt.religion.bahai in 6 months, there's undeniably an interest among users of UseNet for talk.religion.bahai. The problem is that many Bahais give precedence to their fears even to the point of knowingly violating the commonly accepted conventions of UseNet voting. It seems to me such an attitude violates too very basic beliefs articulated in the Bahai Writings about honesty, justice, fairness, respect, etc.... All the basic virtues that supposedly mean something to Bahais, speaking as a Bahai.... If all that doesn't constitute close-minded intolerance and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.... People are being rigid and dogmatic and just saying to hell with UseNet injunctions not to vote for political or religious reasons.... > > > > > > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > > > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > > > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > > > > It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS > > FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to > > soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, > > ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago > > and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > The voting process does have its difficulties, as the news.groups > regulars can certainly attest to. And this is why I have increasingly come to feel there should be a system where the group-mentors and the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers can consult and override, based on precedent and custom, common law, if you will, egregious breaches of the usual voting practices. Again, I feel Bahais are undermining the international "governmental" system of UseNet and that that is contradictory to the Bahai teachings to obey and follow the established government.... > > > > > > > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > > > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > > > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > > > not to let this clash become acrimonious. > > > > I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between > > fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the > > consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of > > speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose > > talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: > > What I said above was merely my opinion. Personally, I would not > categorize those who oppose the t.r.b proposal as "fundamentalist > fanatics". The term "fundamentalist fanatic" is an emotionally charged > term, one which threatens to divert this discussion into unproductive > bickering. That's something none of us need. Yes, it is emotionally charged. As you know from reading what's been on Bahai-Discuss, not only for me. To avoid mere bickering I've tried and am trying seriously to discuss the principles that should influence voting on a UseNet proposal. I hope more moderate and sensible voices will begin to be heard on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. > > I'm beginning to question whether or not t.r.b can ever be a successful > proposal because of the breaking down of the voting process. Would > Usenet 2 have an enforceable voting system? (I haven't been following > the Usenet 2 discussions -- if anyone can point me to documents > describing Usenet 2, that'd be fine). It's important to realize why and who is breaking down the voting process. UseNet II is a dream and a phantasm at this point, if it's ever established.... A pratical answer does not lie in that direction for this vote on talk.religion.bahai. Bahais need to recognize that voting NO constitutes not an expression of their conscience but a denial of it to others.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:42 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Aahz wrote in article ... > In article <01bcd1a7$e9dab760$7c2ab3c7@glaysher>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >A consensus does seem to exist and similiarly seems to be based on the > >feelings of the people of what is just or unjust, grounded upon actual > >experience. > > > >Can someone with a background in the law speak to this situation? > > "The law". Tell me, have you ever heard the phrase, "Unclear on the > concept"? THERE IS NO LAW ON USENET. I believe there is. And it's based on what British Common Law was originally--the perception of what is just or unjust by the common subjects of the crown.... Common law looks for what is traditional precedent in similar cases--case history, the lawyers call it. Surely, with the UseNet voting process, a body of case history has been built up over the years, stormy and full of upheavals as it may be.... Anarchy lies on the foundation of every human society. Out of that experience of anarchy comes the human need to create order for individual and social preservation. It is arguable that UseNet too needs a more evolved form of polity to progress into the next century.... What is Usenet II if not at least an attempt to provide something like that, though I know little about it.... > -- > --- Aahz (@netcom.com) > > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> https://www.bayarea.net/~aahz > Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het > > "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been > searching for evidence which could support this." -- Bertrand Russell > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:00 AM To: Group Mentors; UVV Contact Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Don Croyle wrote in article <86afgnpzwm.fsf@gelemna.ft-wayne.in.us>... > "Frederick Glaysher" writes: > > > Although apparently Joe Berstein's "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" > > seems to be the only and most widely accepted written statement on the > > subject, I've come to feel there is something analogous to the situation > > with British Common Law, which is founded upon custom and precedent. Can > > not this be said for UseNet guidelines too? > > No. Laws imply that there's a power that forces people to follow > them. No such authority exist in Usenet. I believe there's more involved in law than that. Law defines social boundaries and custom, decency and civilization, barbarity and crime.... Though the social boundaries of Internet are international and no one culture can or should define what is acceptable behavior, norms do and have come to exist, felt by many. Law, rules, regulations codify that felt perception of normality and provide protection for the majority against the aberrant ones who lack a social conscience. The group-mentors and the UVV are as close to an authority as UseNet could have and have attempted and provide some degree of rational guidance in the face of the irrational forces within human beings of any culture that are always threatening to spin out of control.... This to me, in a layman's sense, is the basis of British Common Law and ought to evolve, I think, into UseNet Common Law. While there may not be a role for force, such as a police force, there are individuals who have gone too far on UseNet already and have quite literally and properly found the police at their door. There should be a way to factor this into how Bahais are threatening to subvert the second vote on talk.religion.bahai. There should be a way to take such aberrant undermining of the social structure of UseNet into account on any vote, Kashmiris, Azerbaijanis, etc.... That's my opinion. The group-mentors and the UVV should have the power requisite to intervene when the commonly accepted social fabric of UseNet creation is abused. > -- > I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready > to make the commitment. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 6:43 AM Subject: Re: UseNet "Common Law" Don Croyle wrote in article <86afgnpzwm.fsf@gelemna.ft-wayne.in.us>... > "Frederick Glaysher" writes: > > > Although apparently Joe Berstein's "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" > > seems to be the only and most widely accepted written statement on the > > subject, I've come to feel there is something analogous to the situation > > with British Common Law, which is founded upon custom and precedent. Can > > not this be said for UseNet guidelines too? > > No. Laws imply that there's a power that forces people to follow > them. No such authority exist in Usenet. I believe there's more involved in law than that. Law defines social boundaries and custom, decency and civilization, barbarity and crime.... Though the social boundaries of Internet are international and no one culture can or should define what is acceptable behavior, norms do and have come to exist, felt by many. Law, rules, regulations codify that felt perception of normality and provide protection for the majority against the aberrant ones who lack a social conscience. The group-mentors and the UVV are as close to an authority as UseNet could have and have attempted and provide some degree of rational guidance in the face of the irrational forces within human beings of any culture that are always threatening to spin out of control.... This to me, in a layman's sense, is the basis of British Common Law and ought to evolve, I think, into UseNet Common Law. While there may not be a role for force, such as a police force, there are individuals who have gone too far on UseNet already and have quite literally and properly found the police at their door. There should be a way to factor this into how Bahais are threatening to subvert the second vote on talk.religion.bahai. There should be a way to take such aberrant undermining of the social structure of UseNet into account on any vote, Kashmiris, Azerbaijanis, etc.... That's my opinion. The group-mentors and the UVV should have the power requisite to intervene when the commonly accepted social fabric of UseNet creation is abused. > -- > I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready > to make the commitment. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 12:01 PM Subject: UseNet "Common Law" Although apparently Joe Berstein's "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" seems to be the only and most widely accepted written statement on the subject, I've come to feel there is something analogous to the situation with British Common Law, which is founded upon custom and precedent. Can not this be said for UseNet guidelines too? A consensus does seem to exist and similiarly seems to be based on the feelings of the people of what is just or unjust, grounded upon actual experience. Can someone with a background in the law speak to this situation? -- 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: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:24 AM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Anarchy on UseNet? ---------- > From: Rick Schaut > To: Baha'i Discuss <[address clipped]> > Subject: RE: talk.religion.badi? > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:40 PM > > > From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > > I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on > > how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse > > than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, > > for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > > This whole notion that people voted against the creation of > talk.religion.bahai for "improper political/religious reasons" is based > upon the very faulty premise that there exist some form of "canonical" > reasons for voting for or against the formation of a particular > newsgroup. In reality, the rules that are listed as "canonical" are > rules of thumb that are presented whenver a vote is taken, and everyone > has the full right to vote solely according to the dictates of their > conscience. Supposedly Bahais believe in law and order and observing democratic process.... Such beliefs, in my opinion, ought to be backed up with deeds, not words and subversion of the commonly accepted guidelines for newsgroup formation.... > > But, don't take my word for it. Go ask around in news.groups. Such political voting is widely condemned by most thoughtful people on news.groups and elsewhere. Many realize there must be a fair system allowing 100+ people who wish to discuss any topic the opportunity to do so despite opponents who wish to prevent them. Loosely democratic principles. What else could UseNet operate on? There are a few anarchists, as in every other realm of human experience. > > > Warmest Regards, > Rick Schaut -- 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: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:24 AM Subject: Anarchy on UseNet? ---------- > From: Rick Schaut > To: Baha'i Discuss <[address clipped]> > Subject: RE: talk.religion.badi? > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:40 PM > > > From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > > I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on > > how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse > > than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, > > for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > > This whole notion that people voted against the creation of > talk.religion.bahai for "improper political/religious reasons" is based > upon the very faulty premise that there exist some form of "canonical" > reasons for voting for or against the formation of a particular > newsgroup. In reality, the rules that are listed as "canonical" are > rules of thumb that are presented whenver a vote is taken, and everyone > has the full right to vote solely according to the dictates of their > conscience. Supposedly Bahais believe in law and order and observing democratic process.... Such beliefs, in my opinion, ought to be backed up with deeds, not words and subversion of the commonly accepted guidelines for newsgroup formation.... > > But, don't take my word for it. Go ask around in news.groups. Such political voting is widely condemned by most thoughtful people on news.groups and elsewhere. Many realize there must be a fair system allowing 100+ people who wish to discuss any topic the opportunity to do so despite opponents who wish to prevent them. Loosely democratic principles. What else could UseNet operate on? There are a few anarchists, as in every other realm of human experience. > > > Warmest Regards, > Rick Schaut -- 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: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:16 AM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Re Usenet Newsgroups ---------- > From: McKenny Michael > To: eprice@mailer.fsu > Cc: FG@hotmailer.com; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Usenet Newsgroups > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 7:53 AM > > In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > Greetings, Ed and Frederick, from Ottawa. > Many thanks for your remarks on the creation of Usenet > newsgroups. > I believe the issue according to Usenet is quite simple. > A YES vote ought to be cast by those persons who are > really going to participate in the group. > A NO vote ought to be cast only by those people, likely > only Usenet administrators, who have technical objections to > the creation of a group. > It is contrary to the spirit of the system either to vote > yes if you are not going to participate or to vote no simply to > prevent discussion. What of lurkers? Many, many people have lurked on alt.religion.bahai, apparently for even long periods of time, judging from their own comments on Bahai-Discuss or Bahai-Studies. Such people are indeed using the newsgroup, for whatever reasons. Many of them, by their own witness, then plan to vote NO in order to prevent its formation yet have used it, in my opinion.... > I hope this has clarified the issue. > Fare very Well, > Michael > > > p.s. I am not on Baha'i discuss. Feel free to forward these > remarks thither. All of these observations about the proper reasons for voting were made during the first vote for talk.religion.bahai. The "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" was cited many times at length by many people. 691 people still chose to subvert the Usenet voting system. The same thing appears to be happening again on Bahai-Discuss. Suggestions? > > > > -- > "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 -- 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: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:16 AM Subject: Re Usenet Newsgroups ---------- > From: McKenny Michael > To: eprice@mailer.fsu > Cc: FG@hotmailer.com; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Usenet Newsgroups > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 7:53 AM > > In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > Greetings, Ed and Frederick, from Ottawa. > Many thanks for your remarks on the creation of Usenet > newsgroups. > I believe the issue according to Usenet is quite simple. > A YES vote ought to be cast by those persons who are > really going to participate in the group. > A NO vote ought to be cast only by those people, likely > only Usenet administrators, who have technical objections to > the creation of a group. > It is contrary to the spirit of the system either to vote > yes if you are not going to participate or to vote no simply to > prevent discussion. What of lurkers? Many, many people have lurked on alt.religion.bahai, apparently for even long periods of time, judging from their own comments on Bahai-Discuss or Bahai-Studies. Such people are indeed using the newsgroup, for whatever reasons. Many of them, by their own witness, then plan to vote NO in order to prevent its formation yet have used it, in my opinion.... > I hope this has clarified the issue. > Fare very Well, > Michael > > > p.s. I am not on Baha'i discuss. Feel free to forward these > remarks thither. All of these observations about the proper reasons for voting were made during the first vote for talk.religion.bahai. The "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" was cited many times at length by many people. 691 people still chose to subvert the Usenet voting system. The same thing appears to be happening again on Bahai-Discuss. Suggestions? > > > > -- > "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 -- 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: Sunday, October 05, 1997 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Propagation and DejaNews (was Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai) Jim Riley wrote in article <34c16814.228303088@news.pipeline.com>... > In article <60r8c9$h1j@xochi.tezcat.com> Joe Bernstein wrote: > > > Your post was 2713 to a.r.b on Mindspring's servers. > I just checked dejanews.com on Oct. 5th. It lists 2,994 messages for arb. I certain there were at least a full 5 percent that never made it onto dejanews.com but of course there's no way to prove it really. I'd estimate total postings to arb at more than 3,143 since April 1, 1997. > > -- > Jim Riley > -- 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: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:33 PM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting on Usenet newsgroup proposals 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/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:33 PM Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting on Usenet newsgroup proposals 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/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:30 PM To: Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Roger Reini wrote in article <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > I urge extreme caution on this, because one should not post messages > from non-public mailing lists onto public newsgroups without the > permission of the message authors. > > However, I can verify that what Fred says is basically correct. There > have been scores of messages posted to the mailing list which have > expressed opposition to talk.religion.bahai. By the standards of the > Usenet voting process, this opposition is basically "political" in > nature, since it does not involve the technical merits of the proposal. I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > undermine its institutions, etc. None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the above, and so do Bahais.... > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > not to let this clash become acrimonious. I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by 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. 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 Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Guy Macon wrote in article > > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... > > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, FG@hotmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, > > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from > > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called > > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming > > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the > > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. > > > > > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? > > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts > > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. > > > > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward > > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of > > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking > > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in > > order > > to attach it easily for forwarding too. > > > > -- > > 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: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:14 PM Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Roger Reini wrote in article <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > I urge extreme caution on this, because one should not post messages > from non-public mailing lists onto public newsgroups without the > permission of the message authors. > > However, I can verify that what Fred says is basically correct. There > have been scores of messages posted to the mailing list which have > expressed opposition to talk.religion.bahai. By the standards of the > Usenet voting process, this opposition is basically "political" in > nature, since it does not involve the technical merits of the proposal. I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > undermine its institutions, etc. None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the above, and so do Bahais.... > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > not to let this clash become acrimonious. I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by 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. 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 Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Guy Macon wrote in article > > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... > > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, FG@hotmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, > > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from > > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called > > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming > > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the > > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. > > > > > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? > > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts > > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. > > > > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward > > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of > > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking > > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in > > order > > to attach it easily for forwarding too. > > > > -- > > 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, October 03, 1997 8:29 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Guy Macon wrote in article <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming > >opposition and animosity against me and against the > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in order to attach it easily for forwarding too. -- 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, October 03, 1997 6:42 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Roger Reini wrote in article <3432c20d.20995623@news.zippo.com>... > news.groups removed -- it's not time to take this discussion there, > IMHO. You're right. Although some topics have required discussion on news.groups, not all do, and the RFD has not yet been posted to news.annouce.newsgroups. -- 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, October 02, 1997 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Mr. Roger Reini: a sincere and heartfelt thanks.... Roger Reini wrote in article <3434867a.2827496@news.zippo.com>... > On 1 Oct 1997 22:28:35 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > >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. > > You're welcome. I won't deny that we still have different viewpoints > on certain issues, but we can be civil and discuss things in a calm > and civilized manner. Now, now, let's not dig up any of that.... Sincerely, Fred > > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 9:33 AM To: h- bahai subscribe h-bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 9:32 AM To: Bahai Announce subscribe bahai-annouce ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 9:06 AM To: contact@UVV.Org Subject: talk.religion.bahai: volunteer votetaker & proposal I've recently submitted a proposal for an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith to the group-mentors. It was defeated in March 157 to 691 NO votes. I'm very concerned that whoever the Volunteer Vote Taker might be, whoever you choose, that the person not be a member of the Bahai Faith who might very well be biased in either direction. Peter da Silva has mentioned on news.groups that he would be willing to take on the task of handling the voting process. If you think he would be a reliable, impartial, and competent Volunteer Vote Taker, I would be in favor of him. Though I have not discussed this with him, wanting your evaluation first, he can be reached at peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva). My only concern is an honest and fair vote. Jonathan Grobe at group-advice has suggested I contact you regarding some questions I asked him. Basically, I'm very concerned that the last vote in March 1997, again defeated 157 to 691, was scuttled by Bahais using three different listservs for purposes of rallying NO votes against it. For more than a week and a half now, similiar events have been unfolding on a listserv called Bahai-Discuss, resulting in a number of messages unequivocally calling for others to vote NO, the demonizing of my character and intentions, and two pieces of hate mail, one of which threatens me personally. I'm quite depressed by the whole state of affairs and would appreciate any advice you might have on how I should proceed. I am trying to keep discussion focussed on the high rate of posting on alt.religion.bahai from April 1 to the present: more than 2,800 messages according to dejanews.com count. I am trying to keep discussion centered on news.group (more in earnest once the RFD is posted) and on alt.religion.bahai. Since a great deal of censorship has been involved since the firs RFD was posted January 1997, I feel it is proper to post to news.admin.censorship, news.admin.misc, and soc.rights.human. As a general newsgroup on religion, I have regularly been posting to talk.religion.misc. While I have in the past posted more widely, I have for about a month and a half at least tried to limit my posting to these newsgroups as the most relevant ones. If you have any suggestions here I'd appreciate them. Let me confess I have posted widely in the past but in order to find refuge from retaliation from certain quarters that would have readily struck against me if they had thought they could have done it without anyone else noticing.... Again, I want a fair and honest vote. Please don't hesitate to offer any advice if you can think of anything that might help the situation. 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, October 02, 1997 8:40 AM To: group-advice Subject: Followup header question I have proposed for the second time an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. Someone during recent discussion on alt.religion.bahai has suggested that all followup discussion should be crossposted both to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai so that no one misses any of it. Would that be acceptable practice? I realize usually all group formation discussion takes place only in news.groups but in this case it seems to make sense to crosspost only to alt.religion.bahai as well. Anything wrong with that? 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, October 02, 1997 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai D Landhill wrote in article <19971001201900.QAA03642@ladder02.news.aol.com>... > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > > >Is it fair to say then that dejanews.com numbers underrepresent >the actual > number of postings to alt.religion.bahai, or any >newsgroup for that matter? > Is there any way of knowing how >many were lost? Or estimating it? > > Yes; No; try comparing with other archives (Reference.Com) or with your own > feed. I have noticed there is definitely a difference between what is archived on dejanews and reference.com; reference.com always seems to have fewer messages on it than dejanews. Do you think, in general, a 3 to 5 percent loss of messages is reasonable? For alt.religion.bahai, dejanews.com has over 2,800 messages. 3 percent feels too low for me. I would have to go with at least a 5 percent loss which would be 140 more messages. In all honesty, even that seems a little shy of what I observed never making it onto dejanews.com. Anyone else? > > D.A.L. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 7:41 AM To: Guy Macon Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... ---------- > From: Guy Macon > Newsgroups: news.groups > Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... > Date: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 7:58 AM > > In article , arisian@eyrie.org wrote: > > >Guy Macon's concerns about t.r.b as a rallying point for attacks on > >groups like soc.religion.christian do not seem without merit to me.) > > That was not exactly what concerned me. I don't think that Bahais as > a rule go for that sort of thing. They are usually very nice, polite, > and reasonable folks. > > My concern was this: During the last RFC/CFV, Fredrick decided to > crosspost his side of the debate to soc.religion.quaker again and > again. His posts and the inevitable replies flooded our newsgroup. > Nothing that I said seemed to be able to convince him of the obvious > harm that he was doing. Guy, I've been wanting to say this to you for a long time but maybe now is finally the right time and you can appreciate what I'm going to say. I ask you though to keep it in confidence, for my sake. The reason I crossposted so much last time was for my own protection.... I knew I had to have at least a potentially large and wide readership to survive.... If "they" could have felt they could have cut my legs out from under me with impunity, they would have.... > > This time around, Fredrick has promised to only post a pointer with > followups. In my opinion, this changes him from a net abuser to a > proper proponent. I have promised to oppose his proposal the first > time he crossposts into s.r.q, but I don't think that is what changed > his mind. I think that it was seeing all of the off topic crossposted > threads in alt.religion.bahai that did it. That too. But the situation has changed. Many people who are not Bahais now understand how serious the censorship issue is in the Bahai Faith.... They didn't back in January. > > You trb folks are going to have to work out a policy of discouraging > crossposts if this proposal passes. Go take a look at > alt.bible.prophecy and you will see a dead newsgroup with no posts > about prophecy in it at all. Now go look at soc.religion.quaker > and you will see *no* crossposted off-topic threads. This takes work. > You may win the battle (get your newsgroup) but lose the war (have > it filled with off-topic crossposts to the point that there are no > bahai posts). You're right about all this, I agree. I'm sorry to have disturbed you and sr.quaker. Please don't reveal any of this. Someone was just recently thrown out of the Bahai Faith. Part of his mistake was posting only to Bahai listservs, where talk.religion.bahai is now being vehemently attacked, not to mention me, including recently a personal threat of some sort.... 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, October 02, 1997 7:20 AM To: UVV Contact Subject: Fair voting procedures for talk.religion.bahai I have proposed for the second time an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith to the group-mentors. Jonathan Grobe has suggested I contact you regarding some questions I asked him. Basically, I'm very concerned that the last vote in March 1997, defeated 157 to 691, was scuttled by Bahais using three different listservs for purposes of rallying NO votes against it. For more than a week and a half now, similiar events have been unfolding on a listserv called Bahai-Discuss, resulting in a number of messages unequivocally calling for others to vote NO, the demonizing of my character and intentions, and two pieces of hate mail, one of which threatens me personally. I'm quite depressed by the whole state of affairs and would appreciate any advice you might have on how I should proceed. I am trying to keep discussion focussed on the high rate of posting on alt.religion.bahai from April 1 to the present: more than 2,800 messages according to dejanews.com count. I am trying to keep discussion centered on news.group (more in earnest once the RFD is posted) and on alt.religion.bahai. Since a great deal of censorship has been involved since the firs RFD was posted January 1997, I feel it is proper to post to news.admin.censorship, news.admin.misc, and soc.rights.human. As a general newsgroup on religion, I have regularly been posting to talk.religion.misc. While I have in the past posted more widely, I have for about a month and a half at least tried to limit my posting to these newsgroups as the most relevant ones. If you have any suggestions here I'd appreciate them. Let me confess I have posted widely in the past but in order to find refuge from retaliation from certain quarters that would have readily struck against me if they had thought they could have done it without anyone else noticing.... I want a fair and honest vote. Please don't hesitate to offer any advice if you can think of anything that might help the situation. 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, October 02, 1997 6:46 AM Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? The person hiding behind this blind email address, bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from as far back as several months ago to a listserv called Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming opposition and animosity against me and against the proposed talk.religion.bahai. As a result, I have received two pieces of hate mail, including one personally threatening me.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. bahai@hotmail.com wrote in article <60ue1c$1v5$1@orthanc.reference.com>... > Anyone care to run this past the folks on Bahai-Discuss? > If it works, let's do it! > > On 1 Oct 1997 16:43:22 GMT, skerpan@hotmail.com wrote: > > The point is to pick one's battles. If a name change would > > allow the group to exist, whereas keeping the name would place > > us in an endless round of arguments every six months, then why > > not choose the former? > > > > We take the talk.religion.bahai charter and make one tensy > > little change, the name of the group, and we hit the big eight > > discussions. We win, because the group exists, the Baha'is > > win, because the group doesn't bear their name, and we can get > > on with it. > > > > There is virtually no chance that talk.religion.bahai will > > succeed. On the otherhand, a compromise name may bring in > > Baha'is not only as voters for the group, but more importantly > > as participants once it is formed. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 6:28 PM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 4:09 PM Subject: Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai Chris wrote in article <07A9jHAsfeM0EwNy@baha.demon.co.uk>... > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Jason Roberts > wrote > >Deja news does _not_ archive all posts to a group. > > > >If one places the right type of header in a post, dejanews will not archive > >that post. > > > >The header is: > >X-No-Archive: YES > > > >So, I would say there have been at least the number of posts archived at > >dejanews, but surely more. > > Thank-you for that information. I wonderd why some messages from > earlier this year did not appear. Does this command get propagated when > people reply to posts carrying it? That would explain the disappearance of whole threads of discussion too, right? Where do you put that command in the header? > > 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 4:06 PM Subject: Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai Jason Roberts wrote in article ... > In article <01bcccd0$59a85840$752ab3c7@glaysher>, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > > Deja news does _not_ archive all posts to a group. > > If one places the right type of header in a post, dejanews will not archive > that post. > > The header is: > X-No-Archive: YES Thanks, I didn't know about this header thing. > > So, I would say there have been at least the number of posts archived at > dejanews, but surely more. That's my conclusion too. Any idea of how to estimate how many messages are lost relative to those posted? 3-5 percent? > > -- > Jason Roberts > Bring back Eek the Cat!!! > > Mega Crack and Mega Cash!!! > https://granite.ml.org/mofo/index.html > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 8:22 AM Subject: Re: Propagation and DejaNews (was Re: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai) Joe Bernstein wrote in article <60r8c9$h1j@xochi.tezcat.com>... > In article <01bcccd0$59a85840$752ab3c7@glaysher>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: [clip] > DejaNews is only as good as its propagation. alt.* groups are said > to have "lousy propagation" not just because many people can't get > them but because, for many groups, there are actually holes in the > alt-net: posts from A and B might reach C, but posts from A don't > reach B and vice versa, and worse, posts from D only get to E and > nowhere else. This affects even a group as old and well-known as > alt.support.depression, so I'm sure it affects a group as new and > (relatively) un-famous as alt.religion.bahai. I recall hearing something about this problem before. This would explain what's causing what I seem to have noticed. Is it fair to say then that dejanews.com numbers underrepresent the actual number of postings to alt.religion.bahai, or any newsgroup for that matter? Is there any way of knowing how many were lost? Or estimating it? [clip] > Joe Bernstein > > -- > Joe Bernstein, writer, secretary, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com > Speaking for myself alone https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 8:29 AM Subject: Acknowledgment of t.r.bahai proposal Group-mentors has acknowledged receipt of my submission of the 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai. A number of suggestions have been made. One is essentially that I recontact all of the listservs and newsgroups for permission to post the RFD and/or CFV. That will probably take me much of this week, if not longer, as responses can be slow coming back. The question is raised whether news.admin.censorship is appropriate for the RFD. I have thought it is for reasons I shan't repeat. Thoughts? Other items later. -- 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 30, 1997 7:15 AM To: Jonathan Grobe Cc: Mentors Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai: 2nd proposal > From: Jonathan Grobe > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: mentors@acpub.duke.edu > Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai: 2nd proposal > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:23 PM [clip] > 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.) My posting the RFD to news.admin.censorship was suggested as appropriate by news.groupies versus the net-abuse groups. The religion groups actually are not irrelevant. The Bahai Faith claims to be a universal religion and many people of other persuasions know or have an interest in it. Again, in terms of censorship, I believe there's been an awful lot of evidence of it over the last several months. I'm merely trying to reach people who might have some concern about censorship. If you think it's best, I'll remove news.admin.censorship from the list. Let me know. > Do you have permission to post the RFD (either because they are > unmoderated or you have contacted the moderator) the various mailing > lists? I have in the past. I'll recontact everyone of them to be sure this time too. > 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). Many felt it was all necessary. Most of the discussion under the Rationale was actually proposed by other people during the last month. I'm inclined to leave it all in to keep them happy since it all seems harmless in what's been a very volatile process at times. > Jonathan Grobe. Note all my comments on the group mentors list are > simply my opinion. Thank you for your response and advice. I appreciate it. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:48 AM Subject: Re evil in Bahai writings I suggest a more profitably passage by Abdu'l-Baha on evil is his discussion in Chapter 30 of Some Answered Questions, "Adam and Eve." Instead of theorizing ideally, as he does in "The Non-existence of Evil," he confronts the reality that "in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions" (123). Analogously, he observes, "This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin . . . is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam." To my mind, this is a much more profound Vision of Evil than the one usually perceived, a mature one, one capable of bringing in the masses of humanity, unlike the more maudlin conception.... Lest anyone misunderstand, Abdu'l-Baha states unequivocally, "That enmity continues and endures" (124). I think of Robert Hayden's "Alas, there is no Eden without its Serpent." A dark and horrifying vision of human evil.... -- 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: Monday, September 29, 1997 9:24 AM Subject: Re evil in the 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 9:01 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... -- 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. Chris Stone wrote in article <60jh56$e9q$1@lynx.unm.edu>... [clip] > Most of the NO votes *were* political, even the ones directed at Mr. > Glaysher personally. Mr. Glaysher obviously has some quarrels with Bahai > institutions. Those quarrels may well be unjustified, but critiquing > institutions *is* fundamentally a political activity. Thus, NO votes > directed at Mr. Glaysher's activism *were* political votes. Thanks, Chris.... As my group-mentor during the first vote, I think you had a better vantage point from which to view what took place than most people.... Let me correct something though. I don't believe I have a quarrel with the Bahai institutions.... My quarrel has been with individual Bahais, especially those running srb and those who think like them.... An important distinction to my mind.... -- 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: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:13 AM Subject: Posted to srb 9-26-97 Posted to srb on September 26, 1997: I suggest a more profitably passage by Abdu'l-Baha on evil is his discussion in Chapter 30 of Some Answered Questions, "Adam and Eve." Instead of theorizing ideally, as he does in "The Non-existence of Evil," he confronts the reality that "in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions" (123). Analogously, he observes, "This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin . . . is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam." To my mind, this is a much more profound Vision of Evil than the one usually perceived, a mature one, one capable of bringing in the masses of humanity, unlike the more maudlin conception.... Lest anyone misunderstand, Abdu'l-Baha states unequivocally, "That enmity continues and endures" (124). I think of Robert Hayden's "Alas, there is no Eden without its Serpent." A dark and horrifying vision of human evil.... -- 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. kay chiswell wrote in article <"8JbG1C.A.ZxC.46qK0"@bounty>... > I am interested in starting a discussion on the concept of evil in the > Bah'i writings. In our deepening group, in Queensland Australia, we > have been studying SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS and have reached the section > where 'Abdu'l-Bah discusses the "non-existence of evil". He seems to be > saying that evil is the non-existence of good qualities. > We would welcome comments from anyone in this discussion group who has a > deeper understanding of the concept of evil in the writings and other > references where this concept is discussed in the writings. > Thank you, I'm looking forward to your comments. > Kay Chiswell > > > -- 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: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Traffic report: alt.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. Frederick Glaysher wrote in article <01bccc15$c57e4ea0$7b2ab3c7@glaysher>... > These updated traffic figures for alt.religion.bahai were included > this morning in the 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai, which > I've just emailed to the group-mentors: > > From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > talk.religion.bahai, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From > April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been > posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points > of view on the Bahai Faith, resulting in 15.99 messages per day for > 179 days, and 477.17 messages a month for six months. Of course, I'm depending on www.dejanews.com to have stored all of the messages ever posted, and I'm not sure that it has.... Often it has seemed to me that I and others have posted messages on the last talk.rb discussion or on arb without the messages then appearing in the archive.... Lost in cyberspace or something.... Anyone else notice this? > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Listservs & UseNet voting (was Re: Frederick unfurls the double standard!) Peter da Silva wrote in article <60jg7s$bj7@bonkers.taronga.com>... > In article <01bccb41$ae0f91e0$7a2ab3c7@glaysher>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Is it legitimate UseNet voting procedure to use listservs > >to rally NO votes against a proposed newsgroup? > > I'm sympathetic. Really I am. The current voting system has serious problems. > > I've offered to help resolve *your* problems with it. I appreciate your offer but I don't know anything about Usenet II and it seems riskier than going with the tried and true system. Also, the standard system is confusing enough for many people. Including me! > > BUT REPEATING THE SAME THING LIKE A BROKEN RECORD IS NOT GOING TO WIN YOU > ANY FRIENDS OR HELP YOU ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS. > > Enough. Okay. But it keeps happening. That is, on the listserv Bahai-Discuss during the last few weeks two messages indisputably urged others to vote NO against the upcoming 2nd proposal.... It seems fair for me to ask other people what in the world I should do about it, or what can be done? That's all I trying to do. Let others know what's going on behind the scenes, so to speak, and get some advice to counteract it, if possible.... Otherwise, it seems the same subversion of UseNet interest polling is going to happen again.... > -- > 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: Sunday, September 28, 1997 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... Bruce Baugh wrote in article ... > In article , Bruce Baugh wrote: > > > inappropriate for unmoderated groups - Guy Macon's concerns about > > t.r.b as a rallying point for attacks on groups like > > soc.religion.christian do not seem without merit to me.) The proponent > > Ack! I meant to say "soc.religion.quaker" above. Excuse me, Guy. Okay, right. Actually, he complained about crossposting to soc.religion.quaker. No one ever attacked the Quakers, definitely not I. This time, a pointer only will be posted on the Quaker newsgroup. That's all.... > > -- > Bruce Baugh | > arisian@eyrie.org | > "I am what I know, a glacier made from layers of history's snow" > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Six months ago today.... ... > In article <60jh56$e9q$1@lynx.unm.edu>, Chris Stone wrote: > > > True, Mr. Glaysher is overreacting a bit. But a CFV, as I am constantly > > being reminded in news.groups, is meant as an interest poll, not a > > referendum on the newsgroup proponent. This is particularly true of > > I agree. Nonetheless, the fact of life is that people do vote on the > proponent as well as the proposal. (And this isn't entirely > inappropriate for unmoderated groups - Guy Macon's concerns about > t.r.b as a rallying point for attacks on groups like > soc.religion.christian do not seem without merit to me.) I don't recall Guy Macon saying that though perhaps he did and I missed it.... Anyway, I certainly don't advocate or think trb would be a forum for attacking Christianity. Most Bahais in the West are from a Christian background, as I am, and would have any interest in doing that, quite the reverse.... The Bahai Writings urge respect for other religions.... By and large, that's been true of alt.religion.bahai during the last six months and would, in my opinion, be the case on trb.... The proponent > had therefore best be prepared to deal with this, forestalling > personal grudges with good behavior. > > -- > Bruce Baugh | > arisian@eyrie.org | > "I am what I know, a glacier made from layers of history's snow" > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 1997 9:52 AM Subject: Traffic report: alt.religion.bahai These updated traffic figures for alt.religion.bahai were included this morning in the 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai, which I've just emailed to the group-mentors: 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. -- 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: Saturday, September 27, 1997 8:18 AM Subject: Listservs & UseNet voting (was Re: Frederick unfurls the double standard!) Is it legitimate UseNet voting procedure to use listservs to rally NO votes against a proposed newsgroup? It was this "technique" that was used during the last vote for talk.religion.bahai that proved instrumental to its defeat, and it is clearly already being used by Bahais to defeat the upcoming second vote, the proposal for which I will be sending to the group-mentors tomorrow morning.... I ask the above question in all seriousness and would very much appreciate hearing different viewpoints on it, as well as advice on how to proceed.... -- 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: Saturday, September 27, 1997 8:12 AM Subject: Six months ago today.... Six months ago today 691 Bahais chose to suppress the choice of 157 Bahais and non-Bahais to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith.... -- 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 26, 1997 7:16 AM Subject: Re: evil in Bahai Writings I suggest a more profitably passage by Abdu'l-Baha on evil is his discussion in Chapter 30 of Some Answered Questions, "Adam and Eve." Instead of theorizing ideally, as he does in "The Non-existence of Evil," he confronts the reality that "in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions" (123). Analogously, he observes, "This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin . . . is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam." To my mind, this is a much more profound Vision of Evil than the one usually perceived, a mature one, one capable of bringing in the masses of humanity, unlike the more maudlin conception.... Lest anyone misunderstand, Abdu'l-Baha states unequivocally, "That enmity continues and endures" (124). I think of Robert Hayden's "Alas, there is no Eden without its Serpent." A dark and horrifying vision of human evil.... -- 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. kay chiswell wrote in article <"8JbG1C.A.ZxC.46qK0"@bounty>... > I am interested in starting a discussion on the concept of evil in the > Bah'i writings. In our deepening group, in Queensland Australia, we > have been studying SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS and have reached the section > where 'Abdu'l-Bah discusses the "non-existence of evil". He seems to be > saying that evil is the non-existence of good qualities. > We would welcome comments from anyone in this discussion group who has a > deeper understanding of the concept of evil in the writings and other > references where this concept is discussed in the writings. > Thank you, I'm looking forward to your comments. > Kay Chiswell > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:13 AM Subject: Subversion of the UseNet voting system ---------- > From: Nicholas Sanders > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: BCCA Coordinating Committee > Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:55 AM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The BCCA Co-ordinating Committee acknowledges your message, as quoted > below. Please note that none of the points you raise, whatever their > relative merits, addresses the two urgent issues to which we drew your > attention in our earlier communication. Our consideration of your > concerns will require a little time but I must re-emphasise our essential > observations: no matter the rights or wrongs of your arguments, it is not > acceptable to repost private postings to Usenet groups nor to publish the > address of a private Baha'i email list in the same fora. As I mentioned in my first message, I too share these concerns, while I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... Please address that concern as soon as possible. In the hope that you will take positive action to protect UseNet abuse from undermining the second vote on talk.religion.bahai, I will refrain from reposting other messages until I hear from you again. Let me point out that at least a dozen other messages calculating opposing the usual method of UseNet voting on talk.religion.bahai have appeared during the last two days on Bahai-Discuss. > > I shall respond further to your message as soon as possible. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 23/09/97 14:43 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this > >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand > >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of > >action. > > > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an > >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and > >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and > >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the > >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only > >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, > >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning > >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end > >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > > > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, > >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite > >similar to the character assassination practiced on > >soc.religion.bahai. > > > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to > >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other > >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and > >pseudo-religious reasons. > > > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion > >listserv to support such activities. > > > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, > >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of > >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? > >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the > >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to > >form talk.religion.bahai? > > > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, > >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, > >the God-given right of others to express their own religious > >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? > >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without > >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally > >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and > >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter > >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a > >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems > >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > > > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, > >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of > >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against > >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been > >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > > > >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 will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack > >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be > >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais > >from doing so. > > > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by > >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > > > >"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 > >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > > > > > > >---------- > >> From: CC Secretary > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > >> Cc: CC Mail > >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss > >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > >> > >> Dear Mr Glaysher > >> > >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > >> > >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > >> you to desist where that is not the case. > >> > >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > > > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > >> > >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > >> > >> In His service > >> > >> Nick Sanders > >> > >> > >> Nicholas J A Sanders > >> _______________________ > >> Secretary > >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > >> > > > > > >Appended message follows: > >---------------------------------------- > >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 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: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@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: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 > >From: "John B. Cornell" > > > > > > >Message> > > > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may > >think > >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > > > It is logical to assume so. > > > >> It is not. > >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > >> pleasant place. > > > > That's what we discovered. > > > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not > >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an > >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of > >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > > > >> So I guess it's > >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is > >bound to suffer. > > > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. > >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not > >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. > >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups > >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy > >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with > >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group > >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. > >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed > >supervision. > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting > >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and > >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently > >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do > >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an > >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our > >image when operated by someone out of control. We should > >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a > >more visible newsgroup. > > > > John > > > -- 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 25, 1997 6:35 AM Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on 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. skerpan@hotmail.com wrote in article <60bs7a$fk2$1@orthanc.reference.com>... > > On 23 Sep 1997 12:45:23 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > > Fred, Fred > > Your paranoia is working over time, it's been said a gazillion > times in response to your personal attacks on Mr. Towfiq, there > was one message, posted to 3 listserv discussion groups, > discuss, announce and teachers. I repeat it was posted once, > and retracted less than 12 hours later, on all three groups. Paranoia is based on nothing. The messages you choose to ignore are clearing subverting the UseNet system of voting.... It's been more than SIX months since Towfiq posted his message, and now, for the first time, a Bahai has had the honesty, finally, or is it a slip, to reveal ALL of the three listservs it was posted to.... Though only hearsay still exists that it was ever retracted.... I never saw it and yet it attacked me directly.... I don't call that a "retraction." > > Mr. Towfiq made a mistake, he corrected his mistake, can you > please, please, please stop persecuting the man. We all make > mistakes sometimes, I bet even HRH Glaysher has made a mistake > once. He had the balls to admit his mistake, retract his > message and sit on the sidelines afterwards. But you keep > hounding him and hounding him and hounding him, why? What is > your excuse for setting the dogs on this man? Jesus, Fred, it's > been six months, the man sent one message that your holiness > didn't like and you beat him into the ground with it "Didn't like" ignores his abuse of the voting system that deprive others of the right to participate as they saw fit on UseNet.... His abuse is significant because it typifies what many Bahais think is just fine and dandy and what is now taking place on Bahai-Discuss.... See the samplers. I could just easily repost another dozen such messages though I won't. > > Stop harassing the man, for God's sake. > > > During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an > > individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and > > how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and > > reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the > > honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only > > assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, > > given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning > > to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end > > of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > > procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > > > > You drag yourself into the mud with your constant haranging, > a quote like "he's at it again" is hardly slander, again, you > use inflamatory speech, you have to prove slander in a court > of law, but then you really aren't interested in proving anything > are you? The proof is in the messages I reposted and which you choose to close your eyes to.... > > > Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, > > both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite > > similar to the character assassination practiced on > > soc.religion.bahai. > > > > Fred, in a democracy, people are free to vote on any reason > whether you consider it silly or wrong. We all get one vote to > do with as we please. Me< I'm going to use my vote to oppose > your silly rant group. Your subverting the voting system by this approach.... > > > I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to > > alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other > > messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and > > pseudo-religious reasons. > > > > And who appointed you guardian of Baha'i Discuss? What gives > you the right to dictate what is or isn't talked about on > Baha'i Discuss? The only censor here is you Fred, you harrass > anyone who doesn't agree with you until the shut up. Well, guess > what Fred, you aren't going to intimidate me into silence. > Would be bullies like you don't scare me. What I am doing and have done is to expose the undermining of commonly accepted UseNet procedure on Bahai-Discuss.... > > > I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion > > listserv to support such activities. > > > > A single message to 3 listserv disscussions is hardly a > "campaign." Here you go playing with words again. Your > responses are always sugar coated acid. > > > As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, > > did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of > > his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? > > Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the > > voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to > > form talk.religion.bahai? > > > > Perhaps you could tell us why you feel you must be personally > present whenever talk.religion.bahai is discussed? Contrary to > what you may believe, you don't own the internet, people can > disagree with you. > > > Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, > > for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, > > the God-given right of others to express their own religious > > conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? > > You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without > > non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally > > confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and > > non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter > > distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a > > Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems > > instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > > > Hear we go with the 156+ arguement again, Fred, really, > in any vote, there are a handfull that really want a group, the > rest are just hangers on. Everyone has voted for groups at > sometime and the never bothered about them. The see the CFV, > it's easy and they vote, no big deal, no commitment. Of all the > people that voted for srb, less that 1/4 of them ever posted > a message in it. > > > I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, > > created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of > > Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against > > talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been > > presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > > > > Others = HRH Frederick Glaysher > > > 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. > > > > But no appology, Frederick breaks the rules of Netiquette > because after all they are meant for others, he's above all > that, he's chasing the holy windmill of trb. The ends > justify the means, Freddie can do anything, say anything > and that's ok, after all he's right. I find this false and full of distortions.... > > > I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack > > the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be > > necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais > > from doing so. > > > > > > -- > > 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[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 7:13 AM Subject: Re: 4th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Does srb have in its charter a confession that they imagine God has laid his holy hand on them alone in all the universe? -- 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. Roger Reini wrote in article <3427ab6b.64997712@news.zippo.com>... > 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 > >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. > > > > In one of your postings of items from the Bahai-Discuss mailing list, > someone mentioned that it was likely that t.r.b would be perceived as > being sponsored by an Institution of the Baha'i Faith or by an > organization with strong ties to the Institutions. > > Since this is not the case, perhaps you should explicitly say so in > the charter. Perhaps something along the lines of "This newsgroup is > not sponsored or endorsed in any way by any Baha'i Institution. Any > statements made here are the opinions of their authors. They are not > necessarily endorsed by any Baha'i Institution, nor are they to be > considered official statements of any Institution." > > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 8:42 AM Subject: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of action. During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable procedures of UseNet interest polling. I Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite similar to the character assassination practiced on soc.religion.bahai. I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and pseudo-religious reasons. I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion listserv to support such activities. As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to form talk.religion.bahai? Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, the God-given right of others to express their own religious conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been presented to the group-mentors for their advice. 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 will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais from doing so. I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: "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 Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- > From: CC Secretary > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: CC Mail > Subject: Baha'i Discuss > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > > First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > you to desist where that is not the case. > > Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > > We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > > Nicholas J A Sanders > _______________________ > Secretary > BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > Appended message follows: ---------------------------------------- From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 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: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@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: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think > that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is logical to assume so. > It is not. > Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > pleasant place. That's what we discovered. > On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > So I guess it's > not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is bound to suffer. > I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups that affect the public image of the Faith. The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed supervision. 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our image when operated by someone out of control. We should worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a more visible newsgroup. John ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 6:32 AM 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: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 6:11 AM Subject: 5th Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Unless otherwise revised, I will post 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: Monday, September 22, 1997 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss on 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. skerpan@hotmail.com wrote in article <60665o$gag$1@orthanc.reference.com>... > Fred, > > Why are you trying to be such a censor? Seems to me you are > trying to do what you falsely claim the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai do, control speech. No one dare say anything > negative about your personal rant group without your expressed > permission. Who appointed you imprimatur of bahai-discuss? All right, perhaps you have a point.... Mine is only that others might find it interesting and informative to observe that talk.religion.bahai is already under attack on apparently the same listservs that helped overwhelm it the first time.... What's wrong with my doing that? I have reposted messages very negative about me personally and alt.religion.bahai. I haven't tried to suppress or distort those opinions.... > > Since you are still in a discussion phase it is perfectly normal > and right that it be discussed in Baha'i-discuss. > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:34:06 -0600, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > In article <6034ik$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 > > > > > -- > > 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[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 3:10 PM Subject: Bahai-discuss sampler #2 [Further selections from a Bahai listserv regarding talk/alt.religion.bahai.] From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sun Sep 21 17:01:27 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCvgO-0003sIC; Sun, 21 Sep 97 19:44 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" References: <3423BC01.20ED@TENET.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970921184142.340742f4@pop.ipa.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: X-Sender: johnb@pop.ipa.net Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:41:42 From: John Bromberek Friends, I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. John B. Fayetteville, Arkansas johnb@ipa.net-- From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sun Sep 21 20:49:56 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCzNt-0003rdC; Sun, 21 Sep 97 23:42 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: <199709220340.WAA00767@indy2.indy.net> Subject: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (EST) From: William Rieske Thankyou Chris! You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? Thoroughly frustrated, Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > discussion. > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > group. > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > right word, being in there where the action is. > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > Peace be to all of you, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > -- > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > For more information go to , > or . > From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 08:30:48 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xDAJ9-0003sBC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 11:21 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: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:19:24 -0500 X-Sender: persia@persia.com My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is not. Nor is it's would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a perticularly pleasant place. On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. So I guess it's not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 04:58:16 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xD6zR-0003tZC; Mon, 22 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" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <199709221146.HAA06376@mx02.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: Mon, 22 Sep 97 07:51:31 -0400 9/20/97 8:05 AM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- John makes a good point here IMO. I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes into their mouths with no concern about anything. For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to freedom of speech. There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we really risk this kind of thing? regards, doug >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less >in the urban streets. -- 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.