|
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:47 PM Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote: : : Clearly, you saw no other reasonable explanation. At no point did you _ask_ : as to whether or not there might be other explanations. You reached a : conclusion, however tentative, in a matter about which you profess : ignorance. You are jumping to conclusions about my own thought processes without asking the one who knows, which seems contrary to the principles you are espousing here. Actually I did see another reasonable explanation-- self-cancellation-- but thought that conceivable on Mulligan's part but not Marangella's. The coincidence of the two was striking. : : It's not your suspicion that amazes me. What amazes me is the fact that : people reach conclusions on matters about which they profess ignorance. Not knowing how cancellations can be forged has little to do with knowing that it's possible. I don't know *how* precisely what I'm typing gets to your screen, but I still conclude, on reliable evidence, that it does. : As for the "dark possibilities of Baha'i fundamentalism," even the : existence of this alleged "Baha'i fundamentalism" is far more a matter of : rhetoric than it is a matter of fact. Not at all. We can come up with objective definitions of fundamentalism as a historical phenomenon in 20th century Christianity, and then compare non-Christian movements to it to see how they display the same characteristics. Juan Cole has posted eloquently on this score. : Oh, because one might want to test a hypothesis before running with it to : some public forum. What would your cancelling your own posts have to do with Marangella cancelling his? Or Mulligan? Isn't it obvious especially in the former case that there is cause for suspicion? : about such things before putting one's foot so squarely in one's mouth. As you know, I now have written to both people and we will see what Marangella has to say. : : Indeed, why in the world would you post such an inflamatory tentative : conclusion without having first gathered sufficient information as to at : least know what you're talking about? You keep harping on the *technical* knowledge. I do know, very well, how Baha'is feel about Joel Marangella. And how a fair number have felt about Tim Mulligan. And that forged cancellations occur. : : No. I _conclude_, based upon the extent to which I would expect these : people to complain about it had someone else cancelled their messages, that : they themselves cancelled their own messages. That rests on the assumption that they knew of the cancellation. : >: Thus, it takes a substantive leap to go from the appearance of a couple : of : >: cancelled messages to the conclusion of censorship. One needs a bit more : >: evidence of such, and that evidence is lacking here. Eight so far, and from about the most controversial people who have ever posted to arb. : : And, let's not forget that the word "censorship" implies an official : sanction in some way. Certainly not in the sense I was using it. Even the existence of a few rogue cancellation : messages demonstrates little with regard to "censorship" unless one can : prove who sent those messages, and can prove that the person was acting : under the knowledge and sanction of some official institution. Absence any : evidence of such sanction, all one has is evidence of a prank--a single : individual acting inappropriately. You are awfully disingenuous here. Are you really pretending that someone cancelling posts by Marangella (especially) would be simply an individual pulling a prank? That *official* and *institutional* attitudes toward that gentleman would not have any impact on the person who would pull such a "prank?" I do not suspect that any Baha'i institution knew of the forged cancellations, if they occurred at all. But censorship can be official or unofficial. If a person forged cancellation messages based on his institutional loyalties, in order to prevent an opposing view being heard, that's a self-appointed censor. Which is all I ever suspected. : So, Mr. Johnson, you have a _long_ way to go in order to justify even a : tentative conclusion of "censorship". By your definition, yes. But what word would you use, if what I suspected were true? If an individual Baha'i, whose attitudes toward Marangella were shaped by institutional policies, decided to forge cancellations in order to prevent others from reading his posts? A prank, by my definition, is random and playful, not ideologically directed and purposeful. This is all rather beside the point until we hear from Marangella. But even if he denies cancelling his posts, you will presumably insist that this proves nothing and that whoever did cancel them was probably not ideologically motivated anyhow. What it comes down to, of course, is that you are resolutely fixed in your conviction that Baha'i institutions and their supporters are entirely innocent of any charges made against them. This conviction has been apparent in years of your posts that I have read. Whereas I am equally fixed in my conviction that these institutions and their supporters are in many cases guilty as charged-- not necessarily every case. That leaves me the flexibility to admit that perhaps this case is purely coincidental and nothing underhanded was going on. But I don't see that you have any room at all to admit that a supporter of the Baha'i administration might take it upon himself to cancel posts by a "Covenant-breaker" in the belief, institutionally shaped and nurtured, that such people are spiritually diseased and their words should never be read by the faithful. Can you admit that possibility? PJ Homepage |