|
From: <kpauljohnson@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Monday, November 20, 2000 6:16 PM
In article <3A177FD0.5B4BCC7F@usq.edu.au>,
Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Alison put her review on Talisman only a day or two, no more, before
the
> news was received that she had been expelled. Bureaucracies simply
> cannot operate that fast, so we know for sure it was not the review.
You and apparently Karen are making a HUGE error in logic here.
All
you can possibly argue based on the above is that "we know for sure
it
was not the appearance of the review on Talisman" that caused the
expulsion. But the powers that be in Haifa *knew about the review*
WELL before that publication on the Internet. It had after all been
submitted for review, become controversial, and sent to Haifa for
approval/disapproval. It was ONLY AFTER THE REVIEW WAS SPIKED BY
ORDERS OF HAIFA that Alison posted it on Talisman. Thus, Haifa
already
decided to silence the review; I think they had also already decided to
expel Alison for having written it (and a host of other supposed sins
of attitude based on things she'd written on the Net but never been
warned about.)
Cheers,
PJ
>
> --
> Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
> Whoever tells a lie cannot be pure in heart -- and only the
> pure in heart can make a good soup. -- Ludwig Van Beethoven
>
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 3:01 PM
dfiorito@my-deja.com wrote:
: To me it is not a division between acceptable and unacceptable. To
me
: this seems to be about methods and fundamentals.
Methods seem to arise as a justification only when unacceptable
views are at issue. No one has been punished or threatened for
unacceptable methods of propounding accepted views on the net,
AFAIK.
snip
:
: But let’s get to the heart of the matter. There is a difference
: between expressing the idea that one disagrees with a policy of the NSA
: and one disagrees with ‘Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.
Of course. But there is also a difference between disagreeing
with something AB or SE said, and rejecting their authority to say
it. Only the latter would place one outside the pale. Or
disobedience to the policy one disagrees withn.
There are
: channels set up to consult with administrative bodies on issues that
: one disagrees with. Consultation is the vehicle for agreement.
: Disagreeing with the authorized interpreters _should_ land you in hot
: water – especially when you take those disagreements into the public
: space.
FSVO "should." Is saying in cyberspace that AB (like
everyone
else of his time period) didn't know what we now know about
physics and his remarks show it, or that SE (like everyone else
of his time period) didn't understand homosexuality as
contemporary mental health professionals do, treason? If so,
then you're compounding the problem of claiming fallible people
to be infallible with the problem of persecuting anyone who dares
point out their fallibility.
:
: Attacking the fundamentals of the Baha’i Faith will lead to disunity
Imagining every jot and tittle ever said to be
"fundamentals" and
every disagreement to be "attacking" has caused a zillion times
more disunity.
Cheers,
PJ
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Subject: Re: Warning - Dejanews Posting Rules
Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 2:01 PM
: > > On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:22:35 -0500, Saman Ahmadi
: > > <perspolis@earthlink.net> wrote:
: > > >
: > > >Slander is, as I understand, a civil offense in the United
States of
: > > >America -
: > > >it is, one could argue, a proper limitation on free
speech. The next
: > > >time
: > > >Fred Glaysher, or his cyberspce permutations, posts
anything regarding
: > > >the murder of Dr. Daniel Jordan being a work of Baha'is, I
will first
: > > >pursue action through Dejanews.
Speculations about the religious affiliation of an unknown
murderer are not slanderous, whatever else they may be. I'll
agree they are objectionable. Who is being slandered? All
Baha'is?
: > > >One question would be my legal standing in bringing
suit against Fred
: > > >Glayesher - well, I am a Baha'i and Glayersher's phrasing
of his calumny
: > > >so far has been, praise God, all-inclusive.
Just because Fred speculates that there was Baha'i involvement
does not give one particular Baha'i the right to claim to be
slandered. If Fred's words constitute an accusation against
specific persons or a specific group of Baha'is, they would have
cause to sue for slander. Otherwise, I doubt it.
PJ
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pauljo@cstone.net>
Subject: Re: Review as censorship
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 5:40 PM
kalamity@my-deja.com wrote in message
<8btji2$g2j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I've just got the news today from H-Baha'i that Alison Marshall has
been
>removed from the rolls for her outspokenness.
Outspokenness-- there's a new charge! They keep expanding the
pretexts for
ousting people. Inventing new thought crimes.
I haven't yet been able to
>get into t9 to find out more about what happened,
Nothing was in this morning's digest.
but it doesn't even
>seem like there was even any warning. Is this some kind of new
approach
>to those who don't tow the party line? - just boot them out without
even
>talking to them?
New in 1997 when it was done to Michael McKenny.
This
>is really vile! And cowardly, since I would guess that just suddenly
>tossing somebody out of the Faith
Tossing someone out and admitting that's what you're doing is light
years
better than doing so and calling it something else, as was done in the
McKenny case. (Declaring him "not a Baha'i" as if they
were describing an
objective fact rather than creating one.)
PJ
just avoids more ugly stories about
>people being intimidated by Counselors and the like. Just what in the
>hell did this lady do to deserve this?
Wrote a book review that dared criticize something emanating from
Haifa; put
it on the Net after it had been rejected for publication.
From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pauljo@cstone.net>
Subject: Re: >>Freddy's facts......
Date: Monday, March 20, 2000 11:18 AM
Mark Elderkin wrote in message ...
>As I have done before and shall continue to do: I think it is very
important
>for the general public here be able to communicate with Fred.
They can. His email address is attached to every post. All
that posting
his home address and phone number adds to the equation is that it gives
people the chance to harass him or worse in person.
His continual
>spamming and his attempt to inflame posts between this news server and
>others, is a clear attempt to disrupt the normal flow of discussion.
For which the appropriate punishment was decided by you, right?
On what
basis?
He
>needs to be told that his actions are not welcome.
Tell him that, then. Don't use terror tactics to support your
religion; it
makes you and the religion look awful.
With a little research,
>it is quickly possible to attribute the majority of his presentation
as
>absolute rubbish.
Then do that research and post it, don't just assert it, and DON'T do
this
(details removed):
>Mr. FG, xxxxxxxxx Street, Rochester, MI.
48307-2819
>to call: xxxxxxxxx in the USA.
>
You make your motives clear in another post to which I'll respond.
PJ
|