From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 1999 11:51 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Cc: Dave Cornejo; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: Fw: Automatic reply to your test message.
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I've hesitated to bring this message that was falsely
> posted using my name and email address to your attention.
> I've decided I should let you know about it in case you've heard of
> it or it affects the poll in some way I don't realize.
I had a reply from a uni in England over what seems to be an identical
message with my address as false author.
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <76k41b$icq$13@remarQ.com>...
>rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><74p4oh$ps6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
rlittle wrote:
>>Firstly, moderators are "hired" (actually, they do this
>>on their own time, using their own personal computers for
>>no material compensation) to enforce a charter which was
>>voted into existence through a democratic election.
The present "charter" was never voted on. It was imposed
during the fall of 1996 by the "moderators" emphasizing in
a new and major way covenant breaking and the "moderators"
right to suppress it.
Most people on Usenet as well as most Bahais do not realize this
important fact about soc.religion.bahai's "charter."
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 8:59 AM
Subject: Demagoguery - The Bahai Technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of
the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I
have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. The usual
stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of
unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire
control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him
pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the
Truth."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm
Frederick Glaysher, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket."
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm
K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998:
"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty]
were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in
their condemnations of their fellow believers, I
would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i
affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the
preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling
dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan
Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've
"got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some
awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not
character assassination by innuendo, what is?"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson18.htm
K. Paul Johnson, December 30, 1998:
"It seems to me that part of what Fred calls "the Baha'i
technique" is in fact far broader. It's the technique of all
defenders of some religious orthodoxy or another in response to
criticism of their beliefs or organization. And you're engaging
in it here. Some principles by which it can be discerned:
1. Show scornful contempt for all criticisms, and the individuals
making them. This has the advantage of furthering
group solidarity and encouraging believers to regard criticism as
contemptible. It also tells them "This will happen to you, too,
if you step out of line." Unfortunately, it has the
disadvantage of saying to observers, "We true believers are a
bunch of hostile, sarcastic nasties who don't care at all what
people in the outside world think of us, since we're too busy
bashing critics to worry about the impression our tone or
attitude makes." (See the Eckists or Scientologists or
fundamentalist Christians on Usenet for real virtuosity in
this regard.)
2. Personalize, personalize, personalize. If you can
relentlessly focus attention on the individual(s) raising
difficult issues, you just might keep yourself and others
from facing the issues themselves. Not facing the crucial issues
is of utmost priority.
3. Polarize at all possible opportunities. Never give an inch.
Don't acknowledge even a single point that an "enemy" makes, or
modify your vigilant tone for an instant. Prove that you're a
"spiritual warrior" for the "true faith." Kindness is weakness,
forbearance is never appropriate when God's on your side."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson22.htm
Gibro28W, October 12, 1998:
"In summary, the biggest problem, as I see it,
is that most Baha'is don't take criticism seriously--they tune it out as
"negative" or "harmful to spiritual growth." This selfish
attitude is very stupid. First of all, Baha'is entice people to join them.
When they do, they indoctrinate them until they think like the group. But as
soon as a red flare of doubt goes up in the convert's mind, they're cordoned
off by the group and reminded of their "spiritual" obligations in the name
of Baha'u'llah or the "Covenant." If left unresolved and doubt gives vent to
prolonged criticism, the convert is sent packing or is kicked out. What
we have here is a broken family that had failed to truly listen to the needs
of its members in the first place.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb73.htm
Barthaman on September 14, 1998:
"Baha'i dissenters, more or less, are wounded souls abandoned
by their fathers,so-to-speak. They have been cast out and
dismissed or shunned without having had a fair hearing. Consider
their pain when the rest of their "family" dismisses them too.
Can you know what it's like to be accused of heresy and shunned
following a sincere intellectual conflict (inspired by doubt)--
after you've sacrificed years in devoted service to your religion?
Can you comprehend their sense of betrayal and injustice? This is
why disillusioned believers leave their religions each year--while
some still hang around, banging on the door now and then, demanding
a refund for their lost youth. In time they will have to move on,
however, writing the Baha'i Faith off as another lesson in fraud.
Mock these people all you want--but for the grace of God, the next
dissenter could be you. Don't be too confident, my friend."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb66.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Cf. K. Paul Johnson's general reflections on coercive techniques
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson21.htm
And LaAeterna's method of silencing opponents
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb65.htm
This document at
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technieque.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 5:38 PM
To: Dave Cornejo
Subject: RESULTS?
Dave,
I've tried not to bother you knowing you had accepted
handling the poll on the condition of extra time. People
are emailing me and wondering what's going on. It
has been ten days now. I'd appreciate your just letting
people know the RESULTS as soon as possible.
Thanks, again, for volunteering and contributing your
time and effort on such a volatile proposal....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 5:46 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
> I've tried not to bother you knowing you had accepted
> handling the poll on the condition of extra time. People
> are emailing me and wondering what's going on. It
> has been ten days now. I'd appreciate your just letting
> people know the RESULTS as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks, again, for volunteering and contributing your
> time and effort on such a volatile proposal....
I noted in the CFV that the results would be delayed - I anticipate
that I will have the results tabulated next weekend. The results or
an explanation of whatever actions will be posted then.
--
Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California
General Magician & Registered Be Developer
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <3690de57.49706053@news.newsguy.com>...
>There was a note from the moderators which said that they could not
>reject the message, since it did fall within the charter of the
>newsgroup as it was at that time. The charter was revised shortly
>thereafter to prevent CB material from being posted in the future.
>This is a revision that I support.
The "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai are violating other
parts of the "charter" by doing so and transgressing on the
basic covenant they entered into when Usenet permitted
them to form a newsgroup....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 6:16 PM
To: Dave Cornejo
Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
Dave,
I appreciate your letting us know the time frame
you have in mind. I understand you have other
things to do in life, and it was the holidays.
Thanks.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>> I've tried not to bother you knowing you had accepted
>> handling the poll on the condition of extra time. People
>> are emailing me and wondering what's going on. It
>> has been ten days now. I'd appreciate your just letting
>> people know the RESULTS as soon as possible.
>>
>> Thanks, again, for volunteering and contributing your
>> time and effort on such a volatile proposal....
>
>I noted in the CFV that the results would be delayed - I anticipate
>that I will have the results tabulated next weekend. The results or
>an explanation of whatever actions will be posted then.
>
>--
>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California
>General Magician & Registered Be Developer
>
----------
From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 7:18 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher; Dave Cornejo
Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
Thanks, Dave, for the status note. And I just want to second
Frederick's comment that we sincerely appreciate your willingness
to accept and follow through on this vote-taking task.
And thanks, Frederick, for checking with Dave.
I'm sure that I speak for all of the proponents in saying that
we look forward to learning the results.
Regards,
-- Frank
At 05:16 PM 1/4/99 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>Dave,
>
>I appreciate your letting us know the time frame
>you have in mind. I understand you have other
>things to do in life, and it was the holidays.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Fred
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>
>To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:46 PM
>Subject: Re: RESULTS?
>
>
>>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>> I've tried not to bother you knowing you had accepted
>>> handling the poll on the condition of extra time. People
>>> are emailing me and wondering what's going on. It
>>> has been ten days now. I'd appreciate your just letting
>>> people know the RESULTS as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Thanks, again, for volunteering and contributing your
>>> time and effort on such a volatile proposal....
>>
>>I noted in the CFV that the results would be delayed - I anticipate
>>that I will have the results tabulated next weekend. The results or
>>an explanation of whatever actions will be posted then.
>>
>>--
>>Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California
>>General Magician & Registered Be Developer
>>
>
>
----------
From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 12:45 PM
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com
Subject: trb etc.
Dear Fred,
Is there anything you can tell me about why the vote should be
taking so long? Seems like there must be some problem with the
vote.
I wrote a comment on Roger R.'s last post, but when I did so as a
followup to him the server rejected it. So I posted again, this
time as a separate post entitled "Baha'i Fear and Loathing."
Could you forward that from trm to arb? I don't have the means
to do so.
Hope all works out well this time. Happy 1999,
Paul
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 7:31 AM
Subject: REVISED - soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Robert J. Pease, December 5, 1998:
"I support your efforts to expose SRB as a fundamentalist group."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb84.htm
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm
Kavosh Soltani, December 9, 1998:
"So many Bahais on these forums
have shown to be ready to forget logic and reason, ignore
clear evidence and Word of God, and come up with exactly the
same line of tired and inaccurate excuses and arguments to
justify their position, that it can not be a simple coincidence."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb77.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm
Shakti3, December 4, 1998:
"Sorry to hear that you've been surpressed on srb. Your comments
were alway very "right on." Altho it does not surprise me one bit,
seeing the way these newsgroups operate."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Ex7.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm
Steve Tomljenovic, December 3, 1998:
"The moderators are a bit overzealous at times. Since all the
controversy started, it has gotten worse."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb79.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm
Ruletherod, November 17, 1998:
"Too much damage has already been done in the name and to
the name of Baha'u'llah by right-wing administrative bullies,
linear-thinking apologists, and doctrinaire-fundamentalists. You
can't just blame it all on the critics."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb76.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 2:08 PM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: fw Paul Johnson Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
[Paul Johnson has asked me to forward this message to
alt.religion.bahai. His server's having some kind of trouble
denying him access to the alt.* hierarchy.]
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Baha'i Fear and Loathing
>Roger Reini writes that a 1996 post to soc.religion.bahai was
>"an attack on the Covenant and the institutions of the Baha'i
>Faith," which said "very disturbing things about the Hands of the
>Cause of God that filled me with revulsion." This caused him
>to "immediately see the wisdom behind the direction for Baha'is
>to avoid materials by Covenant breakers." He supports the revision
>in the srb charter allowing censorship of all "Covenant-breaker"
>posts since even two years later "Even thinking about that
>message gives me the creeps!"
>
>Not being privy to the particular message in question, I can
>nevertheless perceive Mr. Reini's attitude and wish to
>comment on it. The post presumably said that the Hands of the
>Cause had acted improperly in not accepting Charles Mason Remey's
>claims. This *in itself* would be perceived by Baha'is as
>"an attack on the Covenant and the institutions of the Baha'i
>Faith." First, some parallels: Protestants reject the papacy,
>saying its authority claims are not legitimate and past popes
>have acted improperly. Should Catholics therefore demand that no
>Protestant be allowed to say this on Christian discussion groups,
>because it's hate-spewing, attacking the Pope, disturbing and
>revolting to believers in his claims? More to the point, Baha'is
>are regarded by Muslims as a minor sect, not a real world
>religion, and one that has no legitimacy and which should be at
>best discouraged and at worst exterminated. Should Muslims be
>able to demand that Baha'is not be allowed to say anything about
>their beliefs on a Muslim newsgroup, because an expression of
>said belief is implicitly an attack on Islam and its
>institutions, and Baha'i beliefs are inherently
>"disturbing" and "revolting?" Ad nauseum.
>
>The way the post was phrased suggested that the "disturbing" and
>"revolting" and "attacking" were *objective* qualities of the
>"Covenant-breaker" post. In fact, they were *subjective* reactions
>of a Baha'i who has been conditioned to be disturbed and revolted
>by any challenge to the authority claims of his religious
>institutions. If such subjective and conditioned reactions are
>to be taken as criteria justifying censorship *by* Baha'is, then
>does Mr. Reini accept that other people's fear/loathing reactions
>should justify censorship *of* Baha'is?
>
>A crucial element of spiritual awakening is liberating oneself
>from the fear-based reactions that have been conditioned by
>religious authorities, and looking directly at challenging issues
>without shivering or trying to silence those who raise them.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 2:08 PM
Subject: fw Paul Johnson Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
[Paul Johnson has asked me to forward this message to
alt.religion.bahai. His server's having some kind of trouble
denying him access to the alt.* hierarchy.]
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Baha'i Fear and Loathing
>Roger Reini writes that a 1996 post to soc.religion.bahai was
>"an attack on the Covenant and the institutions of the Baha'i
>Faith," which said "very disturbing things about the Hands of the
>Cause of God that filled me with revulsion." This caused him
>to "immediately see the wisdom behind the direction for Baha'is
>to avoid materials by Covenant breakers." He supports the revision
>in the srb charter allowing censorship of all "Covenant-breaker"
>posts since even two years later "Even thinking about that
>message gives me the creeps!"
>
>Not being privy to the particular message in question, I can
>nevertheless perceive Mr. Reini's attitude and wish to
>comment on it. The post presumably said that the Hands of the
>Cause had acted improperly in not accepting Charles Mason Remey's
>claims. This *in itself* would be perceived by Baha'is as
>"an attack on the Covenant and the institutions of the Baha'i
>Faith." First, some parallels: Protestants reject the papacy,
>saying its authority claims are not legitimate and past popes
>have acted improperly. Should Catholics therefore demand that no
>Protestant be allowed to say this on Christian discussion groups,
>because it's hate-spewing, attacking the Pope, disturbing and
>revolting to believers in his claims? More to the point, Baha'is
>are regarded by Muslims as a minor sect, not a real world
>religion, and one that has no legitimacy and which should be at
>best discouraged and at worst exterminated. Should Muslims be
>able to demand that Baha'is not be allowed to say anything about
>their beliefs on a Muslim newsgroup, because an expression of
>said belief is implicitly an attack on Islam and its
>institutions, and Baha'i beliefs are inherently
>"disturbing" and "revolting?" Ad nauseum.
>
>The way the post was phrased suggested that the "disturbing" and
>"revolting" and "attacking" were *objective* qualities of the
>"Covenant-breaker" post. In fact, they were *subjective* reactions
>of a Baha'i who has been conditioned to be disturbed and revolted
>by any challenge to the authority claims of his religious
>institutions. If such subjective and conditioned reactions are
>to be taken as criteria justifying censorship *by* Baha'is, then
>does Mr. Reini accept that other people's fear/loathing reactions
>should justify censorship *of* Baha'is?
>
>A crucial element of spiritual awakening is liberating oneself
>from the fear-based reactions that have been conditioned by
>religious authorities, and looking directly at challenging issues
>without shivering or trying to silence those who raise them.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 2:16 PM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: trb etc.
I don't know what's going on either. I'm worried something
is really up. The votetaker had asked for more than
the standard 5 days after the vote. We all assumed
it was because of the holiday season. He's saying
now he wants through this coming weekend....
I forwarded your message to arb.
I appreciate your words defending me to some extent
lately. Few seem to realize I'm not the monster Bahais
make me out to be....
Happy '99!
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 3:46 AM
Subject: trb etc.
>Dear Fred,
>
>Is there anything you can tell me about why the vote should be
>taking so long? Seems like there must be some problem with the
>vote.
>
>I wrote a comment on Roger R.'s last post, but when I did so as a
>followup to him the server rejected it. So I posted again, this
>time as a separate post entitled "Baha'i Fear and Loathing."
>Could you forward that from trm to arb? I don't have the means
>to do so.
>
>Hope all works out well this time. Happy 1999,
>
>Paul
----------
From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 4:29 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Re: trb etc.
Dear Fred,
Thanks for forwarding the post. It's not that I can't access the
alt. hierarchy; never have been able to access arb from my
server. But in addition, when I tried to answer Roger, I got an
error message saying it was rejected. Otherwise my response
would have gone to arb because it was already in the headers,
even though I can't read it.
Could you also post this (leaving out the above para and this
line):
Having received anonymous abusive email in the past from the UK,
with the same slangy style as shown by today's anonymous Brit, I
was curious about who might be up to this on arb today, and if it might
be the same person who wrote to me a couple of years ago. So I looked
up an author profile for his/her account. Someone at this account has
posted to srb as Rachael, a 28-year-old lifetime Baha'i whose parents
wouldn't celebrate Christmas but who encourages her own
children to do so. But s/he or another also posted from the
same account as "Pete," with a style more in keeping with today's
anonymous offerings on arb-- enthusing about someone calling Tim
"Tiffany."
What I'd like to know is what any Baha'i can possibly be thinking
when s/he posts like this. What impression of the Faith does
s/he imagine is being created before the public? Care to
explain, Pete/Rachael?
----------
From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 6:36 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Context of my quote
Hello everybody--
On numerous occasions Frederick has posted a list of quotes regarding
censorship and SRB. He quotes me:
>>For me, I have posted a couple of
>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails andit
>>just ruins my whole day!
This is an accurate quote. However, I think Frederick is
misunderstanding/misusing the context. He is rightly concerned about
censorship on SRB when posts are rejected. My comment, however, was about
responses I received to posts that *were* put on SRB by the moderators. My
comment, then, was not about censorship, since I did get to say what I
wanted to. Some people did not like what I said and told me so. As far as
I know they were not moderators.
In light of this, I'd appreciate it if Frederick would remove me from this
list of quotes. Thanks.
Peace
Milissa Boyer Kafes
mbkafes@bestweb.net
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: fw Paul Johnson 2nd message Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
[Mr. Johnson has also asked me to forward this 2nd message
to alt.religion.bahai since he's receiving some type of error
message that is preventing his crossposting from talk.religion.misc.]
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: trb etc.
>Having received anonymous abusive email in the past from the UK,
>with the same slangy style as shown by today's anonymous Brit, I
>was curious about who might be up to this on arb today, and if it might
>be the same person who wrote to me a couple of years ago. So I looked
>up an author profile for his/her account. Someone at this account has
>posted to srb as Rachael, a 28-year-old lifetime Baha'i whose parents
>wouldn't celebrate Christmas but who encourages her own
>children to do so. But s/he or another also posted from the
>same account as "Pete," with a style more in keeping with today's
>anonymous offerings on arb-- enthusing about someone calling Tim
>"Tiffany."
>
>What I'd like to know is what any Baha'i can possibly be thinking
>when s/he posts like this. What impression of the Faith does
>s/he imagine is being created before the public? Care to
>explain, Pete/Rachael?
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:56 PM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: fw Paul Johnson 2nd message Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
"Rachael" and "Pete" have also attacked me numerous times
and I believe their messages may be found somewhere in my
archives.
A Muslim, I believe Kavosh Soltani, remarked recently that
Bahais are posting to alt.religion.bahai using various false
accounts. I've noticed and suspected it myself many times....
I wonder if these "two" also "NeoLuddite":
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate11.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <76ueoj$4f8@news1.newsguy.com>...
>[Mr. Johnson has also asked me to forward this 2nd message
>to alt.religion.bahai since he's receiving some type of error
>message that is preventing his crossposting from talk.religion.misc.]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
>To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 3:29 PM
>Subject: Re: trb etc.
>
>>Having received anonymous abusive email in the past from the UK,
>>with the same slangy style as shown by today's anonymous Brit, I
>>was curious about who might be up to this on arb today, and if it might
>>be the same person who wrote to me a couple of years ago. So I looked
>>up an author profile for his/her account. Someone at this account has
>>posted to srb as Rachael, a 28-year-old lifetime Baha'i whose parents
>>wouldn't celebrate Christmas but who encourages her own
>>children to do so. But s/he or another also posted from the
>>same account as "Pete," with a style more in keeping with today's
>>anonymous offerings on arb-- enthusing about someone calling Tim
>>"Tiffany."
>>
>>What I'd like to know is what any Baha'i can possibly be thinking
>>when s/he posts like this. What impression of the Faith does
>>s/he imagine is being created before the public? Care to
>>explain, Pete/Rachael?
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: fw Paul Johnson 2nd message Re: Censorship on soc.religion.bahai
"Rachael" and "Pete" have also attacked me numerous times
and I believe their messages may be found somewhere in my
archives.
A Muslim, I believe Kavosh Soltani, remarked recently that
Bahais are posting to alt.religion.bahai using various false
accounts. I've noticed and suspected it myself many times....
I wonder if these "two" also "NeoLuddite":
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate11.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <76ueoj$4f8@news1.newsguy.com>...
>[Mr. Johnson has also asked me to forward this 2nd message
>to alt.religion.bahai since he's receiving some type of error
>message that is preventing his crossposting from talk.religion.misc.]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
>To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 3:29 PM
>Subject: Re: trb etc.
>
>>Having received anonymous abusive email in the past from the UK,
>>with the same slangy style as shown by today's anonymous Brit, I
>>was curious about who might be up to this on arb today, and if it might
>>be the same person who wrote to me a couple of years ago. So I looked
>>up an author profile for his/her account. Someone at this account has
>>posted to srb as Rachael, a 28-year-old lifetime Baha'i whose parents
>>wouldn't celebrate Christmas but who encourages her own
>>children to do so. But s/he or another also posted from the
>>same account as "Pete," with a style more in keeping with today's
>>anonymous offerings on arb-- enthusing about someone calling Tim
>>"Tiffany."
>>
>>What I'd like to know is what any Baha'i can possibly be thinking
>>when s/he posts like this. What impression of the Faith does
>>s/he imagine is being created before the public? Care to
>>explain, Pete/Rachael?
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Context of my quote
Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message ...
>In light of this, I'd appreciate it if Frederick would remove me from this
>list of quotes. Thanks.
I apologize for accidentally misrepresenting your views. It was
not my intention. I shall be happy to remove the quotation from
the next posting.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 9:44 AM
Subject: Antinomies - Robert Browning, Dostoevsky
From a May 1992 letter:
I've been reading lately a narrative poem by Robert
Browning, "Bishop Blougram's Apology." I've read it a number of
times over the years, and it's one that I continue to think
about. The character of the bishop is partly based on John Henry
Newman and another contemporary figure in the Roman Catholic
Church, the latter of whom was especially noted for his abuse of
power and position. Over dinner, the bishop justifies his
corruption to a young journalist who has noticed his calculation,
insincerity, and hypocrisy. In much of the poem, Browning is
dealing with the nature of religious doubt. While the bishop is
a hypocrite who embraces Catholicism because it gives him "cabin
comforts" and the "estimation" of the masses, the journalist is
charmingly naive in his insistence that religious faith should be
"absolute." In a marvelous passage Browning recognizes the
complex duality of the human soul:
No, when the fight begins within himself,
A man's worth something. God stoops o'er his head,
Satan looks up between his feet--both tug--
He's left, himself, i' the middle: the soul wakes
And grows. Prolong that battle through his life!
Never leave growing till the life to come!
ll. 690
Putting this truth in a sophist's mouth, Browning probes much
deeper into the struggle for faith than the "pious" usually allow
themselves. To my mind, the health of the spirit requires that
freedom--given by God--to doubt and question and probe every
single dogma of religion in its oppressively organized phase. On
the other hand, Browning's point is partly that doubt itself,
like evil and suffering, is a test of one's belief, for mature
belief can only grow out of the struggle with doubt.
There is something deeply, inescapably, eternally
dialectical in the human being and in the very nature of
existence, the way it develops, evolves, progresses.
Dostoevsky, in his chapter "The Grand Inquisitor," In The
Brothers Karamazov, meditates dialectically on the dilemma of
free will and obedience to religious authority. Christ returns
during the Spanish Inquisition and is imprisoned by the Grand
Inquisitor who accuses Christ of leading men into confusion by
giving them freedom of choice and conscience. The Grand
Inquisitor informs Christ that
We have corrected Your work and have now founded it on
miracle, mystery, and authority. And men rejoice at
being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of
freedom that brought them so much suffering removed
from them.
The Inquisitor goes on to tell Christ that man's "greatest need
on earth" is "to find someone to worship, someone who can relieve
him of the burden of his conscience, thus enabling him finally to
unite into a harmonious ant-hill where there are no dissenting
voices. . . ." In place of individual responsibility to God, the
Inquisitor promises to free mankind from "the frightening torment
they know today when they have to decide for themselves how to
act." Christ listens to this sophist without uttering a word,
and then, at the end, before being allowed to leave, rises and
kisses the Inquisitor. Ivan, a nihilist, who relates this story,
asserts all too accurately that in the modern world "everything
is permitted." The Grand Inquisitor, grasping for power, a
character to whom Nietzsche must have responded deeply, "doesn't
believe in God." Dostoevsky knew these rich tensions were part
of human nature. At times, the Bahá'í administration grossly
fails to understand that Bahá'u'lláh has also blessed humankind
with this burden of freedom and responsibility.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:14 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I appreciate your letting us know the time frame
> you have in mind. I understand you have other
> things to do in life, and it was the holidays.
Hi Fred, I must have missed something over my break. What's the latest?
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 9:19 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
Dave said he'd have to wait until this coming
weekend to finish tabulating the RESULTS.
I cc-ed you on it. I don't why it's taking so long.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: RESULTS?
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I appreciate your letting us know the time frame
>> you have in mind. I understand you have other
>> things to do in life, and it was the holidays.
>
>Hi Fred, I must have missed something over my break. What's the latest?
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:01 AM
Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson Re: Considering Bahaism? Fact #4
Paul,
Hope you don't stop reading and contributing! I don't
mind forwarding for you or others.
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 1:33 AM
Subject: Baha's Arabic
>Dear Fred,
>
>I hate to keep asking you to forward. It's frustrating to be
>able to read arb but not to be able to post. Thought I'd gotten
>Dejanews functioning to that end, but so far no success. Could
>you please forward this (and a couple more) and then I'll stop
>reading rather than keep bothering you:
>
>Dear Arbdenizens:
>
>Intrigued by the Schaut/Mulligan discussion about Baha'u'llah's
>Arabic, I wrote to an expert in both the author and the language
>in question. Here's what Juan Cole replied: "Baha'u'llah was a
>high notable, whose father was at one point the governor of
>Luristan and Burujird (and who had married into the royal
>family), and he had an excellent liberal arts education,
>including in the basics of Arabic. However, his Arabic was not
>in fact flawless. His early tablets are full of grammatical
>errors and idiosyncrasies. Only later in life did he have these
>rewritten in standard Arabic."
>
>Hope this sheds some light,
>
>Paul
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:04 AM
Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson Critiqued or attacked? (Re: Considering Bahaism? Fact #4)
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 1:48 AM
Subject: Critiqued or attacked?
>Dear Arbians,
>
>Robert Little says that "critiqued, attacked, assaulted, reviled,
>it depends on your point of view." There's a grain of truth in
>that but a large amount of error. The true part, from my own
>perspective: I wrote books about H.P. Blavatsky and Edgar Cayce
>that did the same thing, placing their work in historical
>perspective, examining the sources of their teachings, evaluating
>the claims made on their behalf. In each case I ended up with a
>revisionist account of a movement founder that established a
>middle way between the hagiographies of believers and the attacks
>of debunkers. But while Theosophical officialdom predominantly
>saw this as "attacking, reviling" etc., the Cayce family and
>A.R.E. leaders saw it as "critique" which they welcome with open
>arms and have publicly embraced. The difference was indeed one
>of point of view. Baha'is, too, if told "I think Baha'u'llah was
>about half right and half wrong" (roughly my position) would tend
>to see this in much more hostile terms than Cayceans. Why?
>Cayce admitted his fallibility, didn't believe everything that
>came through his trances, encouraged people to test and weigh and
>discard whatever didn't suit them personally, and thus created a
>climate much more friendly to critique. Baha, and implicitly
>Blavatsky, made claims to infallibility which created an
>atmosphere of rigid hyperorthodoxy and defensiveness in their
>followers.
>
>Nevertheless, in recent posts here Baha'u'llah *has* been
>"attacked, assaulted, reviled"-- something I have never done. It
>irks me somewhat to think that some Baha'is lump all criticism
>together, not making the distinction between blatantly hostile
>and disrespectful commentary and simple disagreement and
>critique. The difference is not simply one of point of view of
>the reader. It is objective. Scorn, contempt, ridicule have no
>legitimate place in discourse among people committed to inter-religious
>fellowship and discussion-- be they Baha'is or ex. IMO.
>
>Cheers,
>Paul
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:15 AM
Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson CB double standard
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 2:08 AM
Subject: CB double standard
>Dear Arbites,
>
>One does not have to know all the details of a situation to
>recognize the attitude expressed by someone reacting to it.
>Roger Reini's reaction to a CB post involved revulsion, shivers,
>being "made sick" thinking about it, and so on. This is
>obviously fear-based and rests on an attitude. That attitude is
>that "challenges to the legitimacy and authority of Baha'i
>institutions are an outrage."
>
>It has already been pointed out that Baha'is have no qualms about
>making nasty personal remarks about CBs in history; read Shoghi
>Effendi or Adib Taherzadeh for examples. But I am more concerned
>about the double standard involving how Baha'is want to be
>treated by other religions and how they treat their own
>dissenters.
>
>As a Christian, I find Baha'i claims about the Second Coming to
>be misguided, misleading, and unfortunate. But not outrageous,
>or offensive, or something to feel revulsion and shivers and
>sickness over. Yet Baha'is are saying to Christians essentially
>the same thing CBs are saying to Baha'is: "Your religious leaders
>have it all wrong. The true succession is in our hands, not
>yours. We are the true representatives of the Covenant, whereas
>you have violated it." How have Christians reacted to this,
>historically? "Well, fine, whatever you say. Come on in,
>compete in the marketplace of ideas, see what you can accomplish.
>We disagree with your claims but welcome you to press them
>however you wish." Not all Christians, but Christian-dominated
>societies have taken this approach all over the world. Same with
>Hindu and Buddhist societies. Baha'i has been welcomed despite
>its claims to supersede these religions. Why? Christianity,
>Hinduism and Buddhism have such a long history of growing
>tolerance for internal diversity (with a hell of a lot of
>bloodshed and oppression getting to that point) that a climate
>has been created which Baha'i can take advantage of, put down
>roots and flourish. What world religion has been most hostile to
>Baha'i? Islam, which was responsible for thousands of martyrdoms
>and continues to either persecute or suppress Baha'i believers.
>Yet Baha'is preach to Christians and Hindus and Buddhists that we
>should accept Islam as the next stage in spiritual evolution, and
>Baha'i as the one after that. We should embrace the Quran as
>holy, and regard Islam as an advance on everything that went
>before it. That is an extremely hard idea to sell to followers
>of other world religions, all of which have experienced Islam
>more as oppressive and destructive than as liberating and
>enlightening.
>
>But I digress. The problem with Baha'i attitudes to CBs as a
>double standard is this. Baha'is think that the proper response
>to people making succession claims at variance with orthodoxy is
>to shun and silence them. Yet they don't want to be shunned and
>silenced themselves, and are making parallel claims vis-a-vis
>Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.
>
>Do unto others...
>
>PJ
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 1999 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Good show!
"The Bahai Technique":
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 9:22 AM
To: RMckin6046
Subject: Re: Good show!
I have not read your message. Please do not
email when replying on arb.
-----Original Message-----
From: RMckin6046 <rmckin6046@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Good show!
>Fred:
>
>I must apologize for offending you. I am sorry.
>
>Perhaps I am naive. Perhaps I am mistaken. But I did not think that I
>deserves the standard "The Bahai Technique" reply to my recent post.
>
>I sincerely meant my last sentence: "I appreciate them both. Keep up the
good
>work." This was a complimentary statement from me to you. It was not a
dig
>nor was it some back-handed way to insult you.
>
>I have disagreed with you at times. And, I have tried to keep my posts on
>topic, not on personality. Surely, it is okay that we disagree in an open
>forum.
>
>I have also agreed with you at times, and I have said so. I have
especially
>agreed that people tend to respond in the manner that they are addressed
>causing them to react to your personality and to slights that they perceive
>were aimed personally at them. I once suggested that we guard against
>responding to the manner in which we perceive the posts were written and
stick
>to the content of the posts. As I recall, your initial response to this
post
>was favorable, but later you criticized it.
>
>I am at a loss. Can we discuss things without my criticizing your manner
and
>the way you write and without you questioning my motives? Is there a way
that
>we can be friends without me becoming a critic of the Faith and the
Baha'is?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Richard
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Context of my quote
For the non-Bahai or news.groupie, I am responding to this
message. Bahais have repeatedly, consistently attempted
to threaten, intimidate, and coerce other Bahais and non-Bahais
through "private" email. I agree with the many, many observers
over the last few years that the only way to prevent such tactics
by Bahais is the open light of day.... where all may read and
judge for themselves. Important links might be:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Maneck1.htm
Among others....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Smaneck wrote in message <19990109154142.00851.00010954@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>Dear Milissa,
>
>I applaud your integrity in not letting Fred take your statement out of
>context. I'm surprised to see that he did agree to remove your quote. What
>would be most appropriate would be if he removed everything he has put up
>without the author's consent, especially those who have made it quite clear
>that they object to his having done this. I point especially to the private
>correspondence which he has placed on his website.
>warmest,
>
>Susan
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 7:53 AM
To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com
Cc: talisman
Subject: Fw: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>
Newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk
.religion.misc
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 10:41 PM
Subject: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
> RESULT
> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
>
>There were 218 YES votes and 63 NO votes, for a total of 281 valid
>votes. There were 6 abstentions and 8 invalid ballots.
>
>For a group to pass, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid
>(YES and NO) votes. There must also be at least 100 more YES votes
>than NO votes.
>
>A five day discussion period follows this announcement. If no
>serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
>moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly
>thereafter.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Dec 1998.
>
>This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
>about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
>
>Proponent: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>Proponent: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
>Proponent: Frank Baker <fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>Proponent: John Walker <johnwalker@ozemail.com.au>
>Votetaker: Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>
>The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an
>open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within
>the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies.
>
>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
>than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
>will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai the
>opportunity to participate. It is noted that the alt.* hierarchy is
>less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; this has meant that
>many people who have voted YES on earlier proposals have been unable
>to join discussions on alt.religion.bahai.
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>
>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>discussion.
>
>Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally
>accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take
>any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows
>criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with
>their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking
>questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their
>question.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this
>newsgroup.
>
>Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to
>start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
>articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
>
>The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is
>prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam,
>and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are
>prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not
>HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged.
>
>Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
>are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive
>cross-posting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected
>>from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>In addition to the groups named in the Newsgroups: header, the CFV
>and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing lists:
>
>Mailing list name: Talisman
>Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
>Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
>
>Mailing list name: Bahai Studies
>Submission address: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
>Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
>Mailing list name: h-Bahai
>Submission address: h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
>Request address: jrcole@umich.edu
>
>Mailing list name: bahai-faith
>Submission address: bahai-faith@egroups.com
>Request address: bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com
>
>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
>
>alt.religion
>soc.religion.eastern
>soc.religion.gnosis
>soc.religion.hindu
>soc.religion.paganism
>soc.religion.quaker
>soc.religion.unitarian-univ
>talk.religion.buddhism
>talk.religion.newage
>talk.philosophy.humanism
>talk.philosophy.misc
>uk.religion.interfaith
>uk.religion.misc
>uk.religion.other-faiths
>
>
>
>talk.religion.bahai Final Voter list
>
>Voted YES
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>garner#looksmart.com.au Rena
Garner
>johnn#mpx.com.au John
New
>mclark#tpgi.com.au Martin
Clark
>house#usq.edu.au Ron
House
>jmara#cyllene.uwa.edu.au Joel Jani
Marangella
>ghous#osr.nsw.gov.au Gitie
House
>billbrwr#compusmart.ab.ca Bill
Brewer
>sugimotm#cuug.ab.ca Mike
Sugimoto
>crleech#freenet.carleton.ca Colin R.
Leech
>shaheedi#nbnet.nb.ca Afzal
Shaheedi
>trustone#bc.sympatico.ca Akbarally
Meherally
>zarepour#mathstat.uottawa.ca Mahmoud
Zarepour.
>narayan123#123india.com Kanva
Narayan
>tierney#alloymail.com Sal
Tierney
>hanv#angelfire.com Haq
Hanvey
>AAli929596#aol.com Abdulnasser
Ali
>BRaynor781#aol.com
>CRust60001#aol.com
>Fglaysher#aol.com Frederick
Glaysher
>HANI72#aol.com Hani
Ayyad
>Jimo3#aol.com Jim
Overmyer
>JoySafari#aol.com Marcella
Hamilton
>KevinEco#aol.com Kevin
Haines
>Macho786#aol.com Maaz
Khan
>Member1700#aol.com Anthony A.
Lee
>PParvin#aol.com
>RayHanania#aol.com John
Doe
>RobertNik#aol.com Robert S
Nikjoo
>SAMaso#aol.com J. Eddie
Parent.
>Shaksway#aol.com jim Davis
(shaksway)
>Smastr#aol.com Sam
Masters
>amasri#dcn.att.com Ala'a
Elmasri
>macleod#beloved.com John
MacLeod
>alexdawson#bigfoot.com Alex
Dawson
>kindervater#businessweekmail.com "Doc"
Kindervater
>tom4#canoemail.com Thomas
Buckland
>sandraa#ccnmail.com
S. A.
>habuhant#CH2M.com Haytham
Abu-Hantash
>markow#chickmail.com Sassy
Markow
>Laudrigan#collegeclub.com Bud
Laudrigan
>jgoldberg#condolawyers.com Jeffrey A.
Goldberg
>kathleenm#cybertrails.com McKibben
Family
>eridani#databasix.com
Belinda
>booda#datasync.com Martin H.
Booda
>guymacon#deltanet.com guymacon#deltanet.com (Guy
Macon)
>vminai#spd.dsccc.com Viqar
Minai
>carducci#easypost.com Ladislaus
Carducci
>UNGARINO#ECardMail.Com Eleanor
Ungarino
>john_brownston#educastmail.com John
Brownston
>mercado959#email.com Jennifer
Mercado
>edwardiii#england.com Edward
III
>stomljen#enteract.com Steve
Tomljenovic
>rothbrian#mail.entrepreneurmag.com Brian
Roth
>alshawa#erols.com Amer
Alshawa
>shaukat#erols.com Khalid
Shaukat
>tutstone#eudoramail.com Marlene
Tutstone
>lopezaz#excite.com Jaime
Lopez
>umaraadil#excite.com
> Umar Aadil Abdul Rahman McKloskey
Abdullah
>gkerley#execpc.com Gillam
Kerley
>david#farrar.com David
Farrar
>lucie_vendome#fcmail.com Lucie
Vendome
>wilsonj#flashemail.com Jack
Wilson
>runchey467#fnmail.com Jeff
Runchey
>dave#frackit.com Dave
Ratcliffe
>howie#giantsfan.com Ron
Howard
>kendrick64#GNWMail.com Steve
Kendrick
>BHoyt#goplay.com Brian
Hoyt
>bjv#herbison.com B.J.
Herbison
>maher#home.com Maher
Barakat
>c.nunez#hotbot.com Cindy
Nunez
>burnettcj#hotmail.com Clara
Frade-Burnett
>shakir_husain#hotmail.com Shakir
Husain
>rdetweil#boi.hp.com Dick
Detweiler
>rshane#us.ibm.com Randall
Shane
>goodlett#ignmail.com Jim
Goodlett
>takriti#ihorizons.com Mohamad
Takriti
>hopegartner#iname.com Alice
Hopegartner
>matthew_cromer#iname.com Matthew
Cromer
>ramirazodi#iname.com Roohi
Amirazodi
>muntada#inix.com
Rashid
>jaed#jaedworks.com Jeanne A. E.
DeVoto
>kwame#jahoopa.com Kwame
Unanda
>samorgan#java-man.com
<FONT =
>r_lee#jerusalemail.com Lee
Rusan
>Aansari#dc.jones.com
Aamir=20
>o_elkordy#juno.com Omar El
Kordy
>Christensen#kansascity.com Len
Christensen
>henry42#mail.kmsp.com Henry
Wadsworth
>todomanana#latino.com Miguel
Hernandez
>David.Vessell#lpcorp.com David L.
Vessell
>sponseller#lycosmail.com David
Sponseller
>EdythBadalian#MailAndNews.com Edyth
Badalian
>ogreen#mailcity.com
Ogreen
>jensen29#mailtag.com Edward
Jensen
>hoffman#mailwire.com Larry
Hoffman
>cipher#mindspring.com
Cipher
>unrein#cig.mot.com W.
Sanders-Unrein
>billmc#email.msn.com Bill
McJohn
>chesshazlett#email.msn.com " and be immediately
followed
>olav#viking.mv.com Olav
Nieuwejaar
>hyle#my-dejanews.com Sohayl
Shambashi
>marifok#my-dejanews.com Arif
Muljadi
>rlittle33#my-dejanews.com Robert
Little
>sutherland55#netradiomail.com Lisa
Sutherland
>mirele#newsguy.com Deana M.
Holmes
>dmarasco#npsnet.com David
Marasco
>cgruber#us.oracle.com Christian Edward
Gruber
>jtidwell#animato.pn.com Jenifer P.
Tidwell
>rlcarr#animato.pn.com Rich
Carreiro
>ellenberg#popmail.com Jane
Ellenberg
>E.Adams#pousa.com Eileen
Adams
>MRaflin#PREMIER-OIL.com Muhammad
Raflin
>robertwarren#prontomail.com Robert
Warren
>timken#prontomail.com Ruth
Timken
>Safir_Ulhaque#raytheon.com Safir
Ulhaque
>jasonmeller#recyclermail.com Jason
Meller
>griffin#rednecks.com Bud
Griffin
>chvatel#rotfl.com David
Chvatel
>maruyama#sacbeemail.com Victor
Maruyama
>harold#shinsato.com Harold
Shinsato
>imran#spsnet.com Imran A.
Mufti
>pan#syix.com
Pan
>s.humes#talk21.com Shirley
Humes
>josephb#tezcat.com Joe
Bernstein
>charlotte#thedorm.com Charlotte
<BR>
>lininger#theheadoffice.com Lininger
<BR>
>AlvartRiecker#unbounded.com Alvart
Riecker
>smahmud#uop.com Shahid
Mahmud
>lingel#email.women.com Sam
Lingel
>haldi#worldmailer.com Kenneth
Haldi
>arman_taj#yahoo.com Arman
Tajarobi
>galaxy001#yahoo.com
j.s.
>kruposki#yahoo.com Andrew
Krupowicz
>nimans#yahoo.com Niman
Shukairy
>padidehjan#yahoo.com
PadidehjAn
>uhler668#yahoo.com Nancy
Uhler
>kakhtar#yours.com Khalid
Akhtar
>vote#kholdan.snafu.de tobias
erle
>indratmoko.poerwanto#heim6.tu-clausthal.de Indratmoko
Poerwanto
>cstone#uclink4.berkeley.edu Chris
Stone
>nmcnelly#bu.edu N.A.F.
McNelly
>hfung#CSUPomona.Edu Henry
Fung
>jdeutsch#osf1.gmu.edu Jeffrey
Deutsch
>jdresner#fas.harvard.edu Jonathan
Dresner
>jwalbrid#indiana.edu John
Walbridge
>moslem#MIT.EDU Tarik
Alatovic
>osborndo#pilot.msu.edu Donald Z
Osborn
>akhtars#ee.eng.ohio-state.edu Siraj
Akhtar
>daas#bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu Mutaz
Daas
>wajahat#bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu Wajahat A
Khan
>slipstk#olemiss.edu Gordon
Smith
>kopetsbj#cs.purdue.edu Brett J.
Kopetsky
>DELETE_Massoud.Ajami#sdsu.edu Massoud
Ajami
>fran#crhc.uiuc.edu Frances R.
Baker
>fbaker#ncsa.uiuc.edu Frank
Baker
>ashaikh#eecs.umich.edu Anees
Shaikh
>nedsaleh#engin.umich.edu Nedal
Saleh
>jrcole#umich.edu Juan
Cole
>nizam#umich.edu Nizam
Arain
>harinath#cs.umn.edu Raja R
Harinath
>hougen#cs.umn.edu Dean
Hougen
>whitl005#tc.umn.edu Jonathan R
Whitling
>dbowie#sas.upenn.edu David
Bowie
>aabdalla#pollux.usc.edu Ahmed
Abd-Allah
>endro#sys3.cs.usu.edu Endro
Kusumo
>malo#pop3.utoledo.edu Mohammed
Alo
>ASyamil#uoft02.utoledo.edu John
Doe
>pjohnson#vsla.edu K. Paul
Johnson
>aahmed#biology.biosci.wayne.edu Aamina
Ahmed
>nali#med.wayne.edu Nasima
Ali
>rufinus#mbe.ece.wisc.edu J
Rufinus
>Paul.S.Wolf#alum.wpi.edu Paul S.
Wolf
>vsaarine#cs.Helsinki.FI Vesa
Saarinen
>bmcewan#healthnet.mrc.gm Bob
McEwan.
>nmas#otenet.gr Nikos
Mastrakoulis
>khairol#tm.net.my Khairol Azmi
Yussof
>rinerin#tm.net.my shahrin shah bin abdul
rahman
>sl1pbx#ameritech.net Gene
Truto
>mbkafes#bestweb.net Milissa
Boyer=20
>davetayl#concentric.net David
Taylor
>islam662#CSSN.NET Sabeel
Ahmed</FONT>
>booko#earthlink.net Sharon
Bouchard
>oreocat#ETINTERNET.NET Gary L.
King
>ljmoore#freespace.net
LarryMoore
>sas#frontiernet.net
Stuart S
>baird#gate.net Baird
Stafford
>sinanju#gateway.net John
Noland
>lightspring#jps.net Thomas
Spellman
>rreini#mediaone.net Roger
Reini
>peterry#megalink.net
Peter=20
>bmathieu#micron.net Brent
Mathieu
>EPierce#ns.net Eric D.
Pierce
>jonboy#onlink.net Trevor
Tymchuk
>r.marsou#pmail.net Robert
Marsou
>RPittman#postmark.net Richard
Pittman
>trhan#serv.net Teri
Rhan
>alhadid#SoftHome.net
Muhammad=20
>m-t-head#surfari.net Lloyd
Madansky
>ayloush#usa.net Hussam
Ayloush
>ceo4life#usa.net Harry
Clinkhammer
>Toadis#usa.net Andres Gutierrez de
Cos
>tommycarter#usa.net Tommy
Carter
>emilyjackson#webtv.net Emily
Jackson
>kaitlin_forrest#zensearch.net Kaitlin
Forrest
>irina#rempt.xs4all.nl Irina
Rempt
>forumbahai#es.co.nz Steve
Marshall
>iio#iio.org Islamic Information
Office
>irshad#irshad.org Muhammad
Irshad
>peewee#scc.mi.org Jason
Wright
>barthelmes#studentcenter.org Sophia
Barthelmes
>andrew#erlenstar.demon.co.uk Andrew
Gierth
>neil#nkelley.demon.co.uk neil
kelley
>Chambers#fetchmail.co.uk Scott
Chambers
>SamtheMan#postmaster.co.uk
SamTHEMan
>
>Voted NO
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>mansouri#one.net.au Shahab
Mansouri
>dany.steyaert#ping.be Dany
Steyaert
>carol_bowie#mindlink.bc.ca David
Bowie
>towfiq#401kforum.com Mark
Towfiq
>AErfani#aol.com
>Hlpflhanna#aol.com Debbie
Jenkins
>Mac0000013#aol.com
>Starlet001#aol.com Katherine
Mayerovitch
>kimdv#best.com Kim
DeVaughn
>stainles#bga.com Dwight
Brown
>david.ritscher#bigfoot.com David
Ritscher
>r.woodlock#bigfoot.com Rachel
Butson
>lcs#zk3.dec.com Larry
Smith
>camm#enhanced.com Camm
Maguire
>caryenochr#enochsvision.com Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch
R.)
>wcol#erols.com William
Collins
>tom-hodges#geocities.com Tom
Hodges
>aromatica45#hotmail.com Victoria
Williams
>bearone1#hotmail.com Gary
Rosenbaum
>fazlollahi#hotmail.com Ahmad
Fazlollahi
>rachel_t#hotmail.com Theresa
McClendon
>screamingb#hotmail.com Screaming
Banshee
>swatchking#hotmail.com Fred
Tague
>jjam#spica.hpl.hp.com Jim
Jam
>nightbrd#humboldt1.com Douglas
Myers
>shohre#itis.com Shohreh
Mansouri
>bruce.limber#juno.com Bruce D.
Limber
>lpolk01#juno.com Linda L
Polk
>palmtop#mailtag.com Bonnie
Blanford
>djull#mindspring.com David
Jull
>slr1bpz#mindspring.com George
McCoy
>bfwkendo#netvigator.com Brian
Walker
>chriseb#nortelnetworks.com Chris
Ebenezer
>dc#panix.com David W.
Crawford
>persia#persia.com Robert
Moldenhauer
>Sandy-Allan#dial.pipex.com Sandy
Allan
>billh#samoatelco.com Bill
Hyman
>doug.obrien#the-spa.com Doug
O'Brien
>manialip#wowmail.com Kate
Sparks
>francis_uy#yahoo.com
F Uy
>Ekkehard.Uthke#gmx.de Ekkehard
Uthke
>naddy#mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian
Weisgerber
>cnelson#calpoly.edu Craig
Nelson
>aull#ll.mit.edu Brian
Aull
>rick#bcm.tmc.edu Richard H.
Miller
>kohli#mail.ameritel.net Pat
Kohli
>helenko#bellsouth.net Helen
Oney
>cybrmage#dave-world.net Bud
Polk
>rogerb#foxinternet.net Roger
Borseth
>ellis#ftel.net Rick
Ellis
>vpdura#hiwaay.net Vic
Dura
>Scarecro#ime.net Tim
Griffin
>jcornell#lightspeed.net John B.
Cornell
>verbrugh#pionet.net Albert
Verbrugh
>okoboji#prodigy.net
Loriann=20
>mehyar22#siol.net Mehyar
Badii-Azandahi
>scooter#taranaki.ac.nz
>NUFAITH#wcnet.org Dennis
Rule
>tr8770#bristol.ac.uk Tom
Richards
>srm103#york.ac.uk Simon
Mawhinney
>merlin#A470.demon.co.uk Darren Wyn
Rees
>Graham#fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
Sorenson
>leili#Justice.Medford.MA.US Leili
Towfigh
>
>Abstained
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>sw.unit02.msn#cwix.com Sue Klein
Gennario
>chris#kzim.com Christopher Robin
Zimmerman
>tikal#mailcity.com Samandar
Roshan-Zamir
>neilc#wallaby.stanford.edu Neil
Crellin
>schuette#s.imap.itd.umich.edu Wade
Schuette
>rick#helix.nih.gov Rick
Troxel
>
>Invalid ballots
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>afshin.afrashteh#utoronto.ca Afshin
Afrashteh
> ! Disqualified
>webmaster#muntada.com Abdul-Rashid
Abdullah
> ! Ineligible address
>ALTAFH#aol.com
> ! No vote statement in message
>MeCraigB#aol.com Craig
Boyd
> ! No vote statement in message
>LISTSERV#H-NET.MSU.EDU L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line
(1.8c)
> ! No vote statement in message
>lbhollin#ust.hk Richard
Hollinger
> ! No vote statement in message
>smeanver#tm.net.my
smeanver
> ! No vote statement in message
>mezmer#globalnet.co.uk
Bob/Zannie
> ! No vote statement in message
>
>To restore the email addresses above, pipe the ack list through the
>following command:
>
> sed -e 's/#/@/g'
>
>--
>Voting question & problems: Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>
>Voting address: vote@dogwood.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 6:43 PM
To: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
Afshin,
I couldn't agree more!
I better not say this on news.groups right now,
but thanks for your and your fellow Muslims' help.
It's hard to be sure, but I count possibly 48 Muslim
YES votes.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca <afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
>In article <916026106.17084@isc.org>,
> Dave Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com> wrote:
>> RESULT
>> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
>>
>
>Peace be upon those that receive true guidance,
>
>Well I have to say I am extremely pleased and thank the Lord that this
passed.
>Everyone who voted YES deserves credit (whether my muslim brothers and
>sisters or bahai's or for that matter other non-baha'is) for being
open-minded
>and not afraid of open discussion.
>
>I campaigned for the YES side based on a principle...that I and other
muslims
>should have the right and freedom to post articles on the truth of Islam
>whenever we wished.
>
>I will be sure to take full advantage of this new development come summer
time
>:) For now...back to studies it is....wheeeewwww!
>
>PS...it seems that soc.religion.bahai has been on a downward trend in terms
of
>articles posted there lately. May this new development
(talk.religion.bahai)
>serve as the nail in the coffin for that cesspool of censorship.
>
>Peace,
>
>Afshin Afrashteh
>
>Answering Bahaullah
>http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------
From: Dentler[SMTP:pcdd3@mw.sisna.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 2:41 AM
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com
Subject: conference of the birds
Greetings. I recently finished reading this book as well as stumbling
upon the bcca.org site. You mentioned that you taught this text in a
course. I would be very interested in learning more about this text. Is
there anyway I could purchase lecture notes, handouts, supplemental
sources, etc. that you used while teaching? It would be greatly
appreciated.
Best,
David
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 8:48 AM
To: pcdd3@mw.sisna.com
Subject: Re: conference of the birds
Thank you for your interest but I've learnt not to
respond to Bahais through private email. I'd be
happy to discuss it on the newly created
talk.religion.bahai or alt.religion.bahai. The former
should be widely available within a week or so.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
-----Original Message-----
From: Dentler <pcdd3@mw.sisna.com>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 7:40 PM
Subject: conference of the birds
>Greetings. I recently finished reading this book as well as stumbling
>upon the bcca.org site. You mentioned that you taught this text in a
>course. I would be very interested in learning more about this text. Is
>there anyway I could purchase lecture notes, handouts, supplemental
>sources, etc. that you used while teaching? It would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>Best,
>David
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 9:19 AM
To: Dave Cornejo
Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker
Subject: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai
Dave,
Thanks for taking on such a stormy proposal. I know it
hasn't been easy for you and probably often a royal
pain....
Has the RESULT been sent to soc.religion.bahai?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:36 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Cc: Dave Cornejo; Ron House; Frank Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for taking on such a stormy proposal. I know it
> hasn't been easy for you and probably often a royal
> pain....
>
> Has the RESULT been sent to soc.religion.bahai?
>
> Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
> On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Dear Fred, Ron, John, Frank, Dave,
I am SO happy that the vote succeeded. I wish we could get
together and exchange hugs. I feel so good about this.
I feel the newsgroup will be a chink to let light in
(though perhaps other stuff, too, but it's an imperfect world).
Love and good wishes for the future to you all,
Fran
----------
From: John Walker[SMTP:johnwalker@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:22 AM
To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Frederick Glaysher; Ron House
Subject: Successful vote for TRB
Dear fellow proponents
Even though I had a very limited role to play in the process of establishing
Talk Religion Baha'i I am very happy to see that the vote was successful and
congratulate you all in its success.
Unfortunately I don't have very much spare time and you probably won't see
many contributions from me on TRB, nevertheless, I hope that the quality of
the debate is both positive and highly stimulating and conducted in a true
Baha'i spirit that will attract the hearts of people and assist them to come
to a better understanding of the knowledge and love revealed by Baha'u'llah
and which is so sorely needed in the world at this time.
John Walker
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:38 AM
Subject: Bahai threats
"The Bahai Technique":
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
For the non-Bahai or news.groupie, I am responding to this
message. Bahais have repeatedly, consistently attempted
to threaten, intimidate, and coerce other Bahais and non-Bahais
through "private" email. I agree with the many, many observers
over the last few years that the only way to prevent such tactics
by Bahais is the open light of day.... where all may read and
judge for themselves. Important links might be:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/hate.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Maneck1.htm
Among others....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:49 AM
To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Ron House; Dave Cornejo
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
I'd like to thank Dave Cornejo, the votetaker, for
volunteering to conduct this 3rd interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai. Usenet truly depends on such people
contributing their time and labor for the benefit of others.
I also thank all of the news.groups regulars who have
participated and contributed in one way or another
during this 3rd interest poll and/or the previous two polls
over the last two years.
I and other Bahais and non-Bahais are deeply indebted
to all of you for your help and advice.
Thank you....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
I'd like to thank Dave Cornejo, the votetaker, for
volunteering to conduct this 3rd interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai. Usenet truly depends on such people
contributing their time and labor for the benefit of others.
I also thank all of the news.groups regulars who have
participated and contributed in one way or another
during this 3rd interest poll and/or the previous two polls
over the last two years.
I and other Bahais and non-Bahais are deeply indebted
to all of you for your help and advice.
Thank you....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
On alt.religion.bahai and AOL, Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 8:09 AM
To: John Walker; Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Ron House
Subject: Re: Successful vote for TRB
Re: "John Walker"
I don't believe you've had any role to play. You
never once posted a single message in a public
forum supporting trb nor did you even vote for
the newsgroup, so profound was your "support"
for it.
I've never been convinced that you were at all honest
in your involvement and remained unconvinced. I find
your message below quite contemptible....
Do not email me again....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walker <johnwalker@ozemail.com.au>
To: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>; Frank Baker <fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>;
Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>; Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 6:23 AM
Subject: Successful vote for TRB
>Dear fellow proponents
>
>Even though I had a very limited role to play in the process of
establishing
>Talk Religion Baha'i I am very happy to see that the vote was successful
and
>congratulate you all in its success.
>
>Unfortunately I don't have very much spare time and you probably won't see
>many contributions from me on TRB, nevertheless, I hope that the quality of
>the debate is both positive and highly stimulating and conducted in a true
>Baha'i spirit that will attract the hearts of people and assist them to
come
>to a better understanding of the knowledge and love revealed by Baha'u'llah
>and which is so sorely needed in the world at this time.
>
>John Walker
>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 9:00 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Antinomies - Frodo, Prospero
Frodo:
"But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire,
and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam,
when things are in danger; some one has to give them up, lose
them, so that others may keep them. But you are my heir...."
Prospero:
"Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint....
But release me from my bands,
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;
And my ending is despair
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so, that it assaults
Mercy itself, and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free."
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 12:53 PM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai RESULT on soc.religion.bahai?
Has anyone seen the RESULT posted on soc.religion.bahai? It has
appeared on the other newsgroups listed in the CFV.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:29 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Re: Successful vote for TRB
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> Re: "John Walker"
>
> I don't believe you've had any role to play. You
> never once posted a single message in a public
> forum supporting trb nor did you even vote for
> the newsgroup, so profound was your "support"
> for it.
>
> I've never been convinced that you were at all honest
> in your involvement and remained unconvinced. I find
> your message below quite contemptible....
>
> Do not email me again....
Don't be a dill, Fred! I KNOW why John joined and where his time goes,
and people have told me that such a proponent made them think twice.
Anyway, a sign of a great person is to be gracious in victory.
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 5:40 PM
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com
Subject: Congrats
Dear Fred,
I know you must be pleased with the results, as I am. Thanks for
all your effort on behalf of trb. I just hope the bastards
aren't cooking up some scheme to abort it. But the time is
almost up for that.
Schaut is a real piece of work! 5 personal attacks on me in one
day, a record. Think I'll start ignoring him again. Even though
he's a total asshole and deserves harassment since he's dished it
out so much, I'm softhearted and can't help feeling sorry for him
the way Tim is lambasting him. "Epistle to the Weasel" indeed.
Funny that Tim abuses him, I'm polite to him, but he abuses me
and not Tim. Wonder what's behind that. Well, he's shut up
today as far as I'm involved which is good to see.
Congratulations and let's hope the new newsgroup gets more
traffic than srb and arb combined!
Cheers,
Paul
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 6:38 PM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Congrats
<<File: Annotated NO voters - 3rd interest poll.txt>>
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 4:40 PM
Subject: Congrats
>Dear Fred,
>
>I know you must be pleased with the results, as I am. Thanks for
>all your effort on behalf of trb. I just hope the bastards
>aren't cooking up some scheme to abort it. But the time is
>almost up for that.
Thanks. You're about the only person who has said anything
kind about it! I'm worrying too that they're up to something.
They always have been in the past.... I've done an Annotated
NO voters this time too but am waiting until trb is up and
running before posting it there and on arb. I'll attach it, though,
for you....
>
>Schaut is a real piece of work! 5 personal attacks on me in one
>day, a record. Think I'll start ignoring him again. Even though
>he's a total asshole and deserves harassment since he's dished it
>out so much, I'm softhearted and can't help feeling sorry for him
>the way Tim is lambasting him. "Epistle to the Weasel" indeed.
>Funny that Tim abuses him, I'm polite to him, but he abuses me
>and not Tim. Wonder what's behind that. Well, he's shut up
>today as far as I'm involved which is good to see.
I couldn't agree more with you about Schaut. If he shows
up again refer to him as "Schauting"-- Fran used it in email
with me last August and when I accused him of it a few
times he disappeared for months! Probably Reini and some
of the other literalists tell him to back off as well.
>
>Congratulations and let's hope the new newsgroup gets more
>traffic than srb and arb combined!
I appreciate it. Srb has really been on
the boards lately. If you would, point out too that they
haven't posted the RESULT as they should have as
members of Usenet and participants all along otherwise
in this poll. I love to kick Hyman every chance I get....
Srb shot itself in the foot (or ass) this time around in
a number of ways. But I'm waiting for the 10 period to
expire before I really get into it.
Thanks for all your help too, Paul. The first time I was
really a lone voice. You and others have really made
the difference....
Fred
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul
>
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:06 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher; Dave Cornejo; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai
I wanted to thank all of my co-proponents, and you, Dave, for all the
hard work and efforts that have gone into this proposal. I know it has
been a hard road and tempers have frayed and feelings been hurt at
times, but the result shows that we all can co-operate and achieve
results. When the NG is actually formed, I suggest that all of us
proponents start with a fresh slate and make it a happy, pleasant place
for people to go.
At long last we can start discussing issues rather than why we haven't
got a place to discuss issues... :-)
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:16 AM
To: Fran Baker
Cc: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; John Walker
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai
Hi Fran,
> I am SO happy that the vote succeeded. I wish we could get
> together and exchange hugs. I feel so good about this.
> I feel the newsgroup will be a chink to let light in
> (though perhaps other stuff, too, but it's an imperfect world).
It's nice when things work out, especially as this one was a long time
coming. I do think a major tragedy was averted for the Baha'i Faith, as
failure would have resulted in a huge amount of accusations of
intolerance and censorship. It will be interesting to see the pattern of
posting to the NG. I notice that SRB struggles these days to get half a
dozen posts a day, but I can not believe that that is the limit of
world-wide interest in the Baha'i Faith. Clearly a better forum is
needed, and TRB can be IT!
We have to start well, though. People have criticised Fred for posting
so much to alt.religion.bahai, but Fred has had to cross-post other
people's posts to mailing lists etc., which people don't seem to take
account of. It would be good if we get a wide variety of participants
instead of having the bulk of the articles from just a few. I believe it
is up to us to set the tone, avoid acrimony, avoid discussing the past
history of this proposal, and focus on the future. But like you, Fran, I
believe we can do it.
--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:44 AM
To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Ron House; Dave Cornejo
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
The RESULT posting has not yet appeared on
soc.religion.bahai as it should.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On
talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
The RESULT posting has not yet appeared on
soc.religion.bahai as it should.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On
talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:49 AM
To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Ron House; Dave Cornejo
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
From the RFD:
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
From the CFV:
Date: 1998/12/04
Forums: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.rights.human, talk.religion.misc
Dave Cornejo had removed srb and posted the RFD and CFV
to soc.religion.bahai via email. It only stands to reason that
it should also be done for the RESULT. If soc.religion.bahai
is a participating member of Usenet, I don't see why they
should object to sharing the news with their members and
welcoming a newly formed group.
Because soc.religion.bahai has been suppressing all messages
from me since May 29, 1998, I hardly seem to be the person
now to post the RESULT.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
From the RFD:
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
From the CFV:
Date: 1998/12/04
Forums: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.rights.human, talk.religion.misc
Dave Cornejo had removed srb and posted the RFD and CFV
to soc.religion.bahai via email. It only stands to reason that
it should also be done for the RESULT. If soc.religion.bahai
is a participating member of Usenet, I don't see why they
should object to sharing the news with their members and
welcoming a newly formed group.
Because soc.religion.bahai has been suppressing all messages
from me since May 29, 1998, I hardly seem to be the person
now to post the RESULT.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:53 AM
Subject: fw Juan Cole on mass teaching & Maneck's AOL slander
Subj: Re: What's going on?
Date: 1/15/1999 2:09:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan Cole)
To: fglaysher@aol.com (Fglaysher)
Dear Fred:
I became a Baha'i in 1972, when the news of the entry by troops in South
Carolina was still fresh, and all of us were excited by it. What I did not
know was that by then the NSA had already pulled the plug on the process.
They ordered the traveling teachers, like Mag Carney, out (and sanctioned
those who did not obey this order), and pulled monetary resources out of
teaching and put it into 'consolidation.' There is no doubt that the NSA
did stop the process; I have done interviews with a number of eyewitnesses
of the time. A reporter who interviewed an NSA member told me that the
latter admitted that 'we [the NSA] put the skids on it.'
Chain conversion, like chain immigration, is a spontaneous process. It
spreads by word of mouth. You had entire Baptist congregations declaring
for Baha'u'llah, the minister included. You saw notices outside Black
churches advertising 'Baha'i meeting on Sunday Night at 7:00 pm.' There
were some declaration cards that were signed in error. I know of no
scientific study of what proportion of them were. Robert Stockman has
suggested that the proportion has been exaggerated.
But when you stop chain conversion, it can often go cold altogether. It is
over with. Forever. The immediate networks and conditions that made it
possible evaporate. This is what happened in the South. The NSA stomped
out entry by troops, with deliberation and aforethought (and over the
objections of a minority of NSA members like Dick Betts).
Why exactly the NSA stopped the process is not entirely clear. Obviously,
the more conservative members of that body have tended to be very worried
about losing their tight control over local communities, and the entry of
large numbers of poor, rural, largely illiterate Blacks challenged their
system of control mechanisms (you can't dissolve a sassy LSA if there isn't
an LSA at all). Eyewitnesses did report to me hearing conservative NSA
members speaking of their worries over loss of control. One Baha'i I knew
personally who had done travel teaching in SC in 1971 mentioned to me
problems with charismatic converts who raised alarums in Wilmette about the
possibility for schism.
Eric Pierce reported that one prominent African-American believer active in
the teaching work was convinced that it was stopped because of fears in
Wilmette that the community would be swamped by the newcomers and that they
might in turn elect a new NSA. I have lots of evidence that over the years
the NSA's more repressive actions have often been motivated by fears of
being unseated, and certainly a big demographic shift of this nature must
have raised such fears. Whether they were the primary reason for the NSA
to shut down the conversion process, I do not know. That some informed
veteran Baha'is of the time thought they were is indisputable.
Dan Jordan told one friend of mine that in the mid-60s the NSA had voted on
whether to punish a southern white Baha'i who refused to desegregate his
shop. The NSA decided to take away his administrative rights. But
Charlotte Linfoot had opposed this action. It seems to me incredible that
in 1970-71 Charlotte was suddenly just delighted with the prospect of the
influx of tens of thousands of poor, rural African-Americans (whom she had
been content to have suffer Jim Crow segregation at the hands of *Baha'i*
white shopkeepers on a few years before). Or that the idea that they might
come to dominate the NSA thrilled her. Maneck has said that the NSA would
have been delighted to see the South Carolina converts show up at national
convention. Can she cite even one contemporary document, or even an
interview with a principal, which would corroborate this unlikely
proposition? It is a typical characteristic of propaganda that baseless
allegations are put forward that seem contrary to common sense, which their
authors hope will become plausible by virtue of the fallacy of authority or
through constant repetition.
I have said before that I personally think that the issues in control
outweighed the issues in race among most of the NSA members (but not all).
I think both issues were present. What is truly amazing is that on the
whole the NSA managed to a) stop this spontaneous chain conversion, b)
avoid most of the community coming to know that they had stopped it, c)
avoid any accountability whatsoever for doing so, and d) to implement a
policy of disrupting further such outbreaks of spontaneous mass conversion,
which they have pursued behind the scenes ever since. Do you think, if a
referendum had been held in early 1971, a majority of US Baha'is would have
voted to deliberately *stop* the process of the entry by troops in the
South? Of course not. If the NSA had been so proud of what it did, it
wouldn't have virtually covered it up. House of Justice member Ali
Nakhjavani complained that this step set back the Baha'i faith in the U.S.
'by a generation.' He underestimated its impact.
But the real question is what can be learned from all this. The indication
is that the structure and functioning of Baha'i national elections actually
works against the best interests of the faith. The anxiety of sitting
members about being unseated has caused them to act repressively over and
over again. That is why I used to argue for term limits for NSA members,
and for the abolition of a paid Secretary. Someone who receives $150,000
or more per annum in cash and perquisites will naturally be worried about
losing that income. If the NSA members were unremunerated and knew they
would only be on for 3-5 years, then they would be less likely to worry
about being unseated, and would allow more free and open discourse and
teaching work in the community.
The current system is clearly a failure. If one subtracts the Iranian
immigrants, there are no more adult Baha'is in the US now than there were
in 1978. Many of the most capable Baha'is have been chased out of the
faith. And anyone who points out the problems is branded an enemy of the
faith.
So I just plead with the open-minded to ask themselves this question: What
went wrong in 1971 such that the entry by troops was stopped? And how
could things be changed so as to make this sort of ultra-conservative
cautiousness less of a constraint on community growth in the future? The
point is not to condemn what happened in the past, but to make things
better. The Baha'i faith has a great deal to offer the world. Its leaders
are ensuring that its light is hidden under a bushel.
cheers Juan Cole
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <jrcole@umich.edu>
Received: from rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.2]) by
air-zb04.mail.aol.com (v56.22) with SMTP; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:09:31 -0500
Received: from nightbreed.rs.itd.umich.edu (nightbreed.rs.itd.umich.edu
[141.211.83.15])
by rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id CAA12460 for <fglaysher@aol.com>;
Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ZVP (pm460-33.dialip.mich.net [207.75.176.91])
by nightbreed.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.8/2.5) with SMTP id CAA02552
for <fglaysher@aol.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:09:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990115021039.008841e0@j.imap.itd.umich.edu>
X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:10:39 -0500
To: fglaysher@aol.com (Fglaysher)
From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: What's going on?
In-Reply-To: <19990114065156.27856.00000472@ng28.aol.com>
References: <19990113165503.09879.00000449@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:57 AM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Maneck responds
Subject: Re: 2nd: Maneck on AOL about YOU!
Date: 1/14/1999 9:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <19990114214936.09878.00001354@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Dear Paul,
I hardly see anything which I posted in my introductory remarks which is all
that different than what you yourself have said. Nor do I see how they could
be interpreted as calmunies. For many of us the distinction between "serial
monogamists" and "stable polygamists" in the spiritual realm is not all that
important. The major purpose of my own introductory remarks was mostly to
point out that you were not an unbiased observer but rather a disgruntled
ex-Baha'i with a distaste for authority and a preference for the spiritual
"flea market" approach of New Age Movements. I stand by that
characteriazation. Or would you like to tell us you are not an ex-Baha'i,
that you are pefectly happy with the Faith the way it is, or that obedience
to authority presents no problems for you? If so, I will cheerfully admit
my mistake and retract my remarks.
Susan
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:58 AM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: 2nd maneck
Subject: Re: Maneck on AOL about YOU!
Date: 1/14/1999 9:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <19990114213227.09878.00001339@ng-fi1.aol.com>
K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>>PS-- All the ins and outs of the Talisman situation should be
>>discussed on talk.religion.bahai, where some of the principals
>>are likely to be. I'm copying this to Juan Cole so he will know
>>of your personal attack, and may comment himself.
Dear Paul,
I discussed the article here because it was posted here. Had it not been, I
certainly would not have brought it up! When you write things like this for
publicly distribution their contents will be discussed and critiqued
publicly. It is truly amazing to me the way you guys will say anything about
anyone and then scream "backbiting" when anyone responds to your
misrepresentations! But it was this hypocrisy that caused me to eventually
begin see
through all of this in the first place. Baha'u'llah urged the rulers to
observe justice *adl* and the learned fairmindedness *infsaf*, but I found
no fairmindedness among those who styled themselves "scholars."
Susan
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 9:25 AM
To: Fran Baker; Frank Baker; Ron House; Dave Cornejo
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
The "Bogus Usenet Groups" regularly posted by David
Lawrence states:
talk.religion.bahai failed vote (use soc.religion.bahai)
I realize he'll know how to take care of this listing and send
out the command to properly establish talk.religion.bahai
but will the former bogus status create any kind of special
problem, such as administrative reluctance to add it?
It has been five days since the RESULT was posted on
January 10th by Dave Cornejo. What happens now?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
The "Bogus Usenet Groups" regularly posted by David
Lawrence states:
talk.religion.bahai failed vote (use soc.religion.bahai)
I realize he'll know how to take care of this listing and send
out the command to properly establish talk.religion.bahai
but will the former bogus status create any kind of special
problem, such as administrative reluctance to add it?
It has been five days since the RESULT was posted on
January 10th by Dave Cornejo. What happens now?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 9:38 AM
To: Dave Cornejo
Subject: RESULT on soc.religion.bahai?
Dave,
Please let me know whether or not you emailed the
RESULT to soc.religion.bahai. It's important for the
historical record.
Thanks.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
----------
From: Dave Cornejo[SMTP:dave@dogwood.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 11:00 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Cc: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; dave@dogwood.com
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai passes 218:63
Frederick,
I would appreciate it if you would not send me email anymore. I will
see what happened to the soc.religion.bahai posting if/when I have
time - despite your feelings on the matter it is hardly important for
the record to get it posted there. The "record" resides on an isc.org
ftp site and it is automatically maintained.
WRT when the group gets created; I don't know when that will happen,
I don't and can't issue that message. Tale does that and quite
frankly he's so busy right now I really wouldn't expect an answer any
time soon. Emailing him will only annoy him and not acheive
anything. It is in his queue and when he gets to it, it will be
done. I'm sorry, but that's the state of Usenet today.
As for me, my participation in the process for talk.religion.bahai is
all but over - you got your group passed so be happy and patient.
--
Dave Cornejo - Dogwood Media, Fremont, California
General Magician & Registered Be Developer
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 6:20 PM
Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson re The Spirit of Truth
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 10:19 AM
Subject: The Spirit of Truth
>Dear Fred,
>
>This is my swan song on arb; will be on trb when it comes up, and
>hopefully able to post directly. Please forward for me one last
>time:
>
>The Spirit of Truth
>
>Arguing over whether Muhammad or Baha'u'llah is the "Spirit of
>Truth" of the Farewell Discourses in the Gospel of John is quite
>misguided, as most any Christian would tell you. Not for
>dogmatic reasons of not wanting to accept subsequent religions,
>but simply because of the text and context of the quote. Jesus
>is most emphatically *not* telling people "Wait 600 or 1800
>years, and then a man will be sent from God with a message." He
>is saying "as soon as I depart, you will have direct access to
>the Father through the Spirit of Truth." I'll quote from my own
>book Edgar Cayce in Context where this |