Re: Letter to Mahmoudi: The Old Lie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address
from your mailing list."
Much heat, little light....
Notice first Dave Fiorito's distortions didn't work so enter Maneck....
To whose claims I ask, if a letter or message had been sent to
Hoda Mahmoudi, auxiliary board member, why and how would
Maneck know anything about it? The Mahmoudi message was
sent to me the very morning of the day that the first voting period for
talk.religion.bahai ended and the RESULTS was posted, when over
600 fundamentalists followed the advice of fanatic Mark Towfiq and
others to oppose free speech and open discussion.
If a letter was sent to Mahoudi, it addressed only that context.
It's a well known fact that Maneck is Gharidian's sycophant. If
she has been given a letter intended for the context of Hoda
Mahmoudi's interferring in the free and unfettered voting for
talk.religion.bahai, thereby violating the very Words of
Abdul-Baha extolling freedom of speech and conscience and
which led me to appeal to the uhj for an explanation of Mahmoudi's
deceitful interference, let her post a copy of it on talk.religion.bahai,
though it is tantamount to backbiting and further slander, in my
opinion, to distort a communication in one context to fit the evil
designs of a corrupted fundamentalist administration in another.
See Mahmoudi's deceitfully sugarcoated, intimidating letter at the
bottom of the link below. Note that Mahmoudi never asked to
meet with me but to telephone her. The other claims along these
lines are false. Further note that the administration is definitely
interferring in free speech and conscience here on talk.religion.bahai
and other online venues through their various sycophants in
contradistinction to Abdul-Baha's elevating vision.
To the Universal House of Justice - March 31, 1997
To the Universal House of Justice - July 24, 1998
I reiterate that I am under no obligation to believe the claims of
vulgar liars and slanderous pseudo-academicians distorting
past events and communications to fit a now different agenda.
I notified the nsa of my declaration of belief in Baha'u'llah in
1976. They acknowledged my declaration by sending me back
the ID card available for viewing on my homepage and by
accepting monetary contributions from me for years, not to
mention many personal sacrifices. Further details of my participation
in the bahai faith, in sundry ways, may be found in my uhj letters
also accessible from my homepage. If the nsa has unilaterally
changed my status as a member of the bahai faith, the obligation
resides with them to notify me to that effect, which they have
I urge the non-bahai looking in on this exchange to investigate
and reflect carefully on the issues involved and on what they
reveal about the bahai faith in practice versus theory.... Consider
too that the real target of the fundamentalist attack on me may
actually be the bahai community at large, to strike fear and
obedience in their hearts in order to control them and to insure
their submission, lest they too become the object of such a ferocious,
incessant onslaught of slander and abuse....
Other relevant messages and details at
For those who think this smear campaign is something new, Google
archives my being hounding by the fundamentalists along these lines for years:
I place my trust in Baha'u'llah.
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9uq94b$a6afs$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> "Dave Fiorito" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> > > Fred claims to STILL be on the rolls. He states that National has
> > > never told him that he has been removed. It seems to have told
> > > everybody else but him.
> > >
> > > Frankly in such circumstances I don't think it is up to Fred to
> > > to them - enough of them read the posts here. If it is a genuine
> > > misunderstanding then National should contact him - if he has been
> > > disenrolled, National should write and tell him this, not tell
> Dave F
> > > but tell
> > > Fred G.
> > Dermod - come on. Stop letting your anti-AO bias blind you like
> I have no bias against the AO - I have formed an opinion as to its
> competence or lack thereof based on research and experience!
> > If National read Fred's request as a request to be disenrolled and
> > they honestly feel that they have done exactly what he wanted them
> > do, then why the hell should they contct him? Dude, think for a
> > minute. You jump all over the AO for doing what Fred asked them to
> > do. Why should they contact him?
> You really need to be told this!
> You have people spouting about "protection" of the good name and
> reputation of the BF and here is a situation which periodically is
> rehashed all over the newsgroups and does nothing for that good name
> and reputation. And why is it rehashed? Because of the ambivalence
> about Fred's status! And what is the way to remove that? National
> writes to Fred and tells him he has been disenrolled in light of his
> refusal to meet with an ABM to consult on the matters which have
> perturbed him, his E-mail messages have not been consistent with his
> duties to protect and uphold the BF and, in any case, he asked for his
> membership to be cancelled.
> Net result - end of ambivalence, end of any doubt as to Fred's status
> and no more opportunity for me (or others) to lambast the continuing
> idiocy. Fred is no fool - he knows damn well that National wants rid
> of him and has effectively expelled him! But until National gets the
> guts together to get the act right - Fred will continue to exploit the
> situation for his own purposes and people like me, who actually know
> how to kill this controversy, will continue to have fun!
> > HE ASKED FOR IT!
> So damn well give it to him instead of farting about like a beached
> porpoise! Would you like me to draft a suitable letter for National
> to send to Fred to put a stop to his antics?
> > > > All I want is PROOF.
> > >
> > > I agree with you - I think that if National has disenrolled Fred
> > > ought to have the decency to write and tell him that. I also
> think it
> > > was very wrong of it to communicate, in the first instance, a
> > > disenrollment to other than the person disenrolled, for quite
> > WHAT? I did what any Baha'i has the right to do - I wrote to
> > to find out if Fred's claim was legit. If I had not asked, they
> > never have said anything.
> I'm not criticising you for writing - I'm criticising National for
> telling you before it actually told Fred that it had acted in
> accordance with his wishes or had simply removed him!
> > > I'd take Fred's word on it that he has received no communication
> > > National telling him he has officially been disenrolled. If he
> > > why does he have to learn this from Dave F. and not from the folk
> > > actually removed his name from the rolls - whether he requested it
> > > not? If National feels Fred disenrolled himself why has it not
> > > confirmed to him the fact that it has carried out his
> > Oh puh-leez. Why should they confirm anything that someone
> > When a magazine subscription runs out you get a renewal notice. If
> > you do not answer it you stop getting the magazine.
> Because when you're dealing with somebody like Fred you have to use
> your intelligence to anticipate what his reaction will be and take
> measures to counteract that.
> > Tell you what - let's say that the disenrollment was a
> > misunderstanding and Fred wanted to be a Baha'i but stop the
> > Baha'i. If the AO misread his request and his lack of clarification
> > to their querry as a withdrawl request and Fred found out later that
> > he was disenrolled by mistake - why doesn't he call them to
> > it out?
> Why should he? National has made a stick for him to beat it! Like I
> said - Fred is no fool!
> > I would call in a heartbeat. If it is that important to him why
> > doesn't he just go complain to the AO that they did not follow his
> > instructions and clarify to them that he does indeed want to be a
> > Baha'i?
> > I will tell you why. He would rather be an anti-AO martyr, and give
> > folks like you an excuse to beat up on the AO.
> You got it .... eventually! Mind you, National still hasn't grasped
> it! But then it rarely does! And you're the folk who elect it and
> I'm only one of those who laugh at it!
> > Sorry but this problem is Fred's to solve. Until he does he will
> > remain outside of the Baha'i Faith looking in.
> A most splendid place to be!
> As ever,