From: Steve Marshall <forumbahai@es.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Majnun post
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 2:07 PM
>No. It was, however, completely appropriate for someone to appraise the
>members of the list of the facts of the situation, and that is all that
>Counselor Birkland did.
Steve Birkland's statement - "this creates a serious concern for
Baha’i participants on the list in the light of the explicit Baha’i
Teachings on the Covenant" went beyond the facts and gave a warning,
although that warning is so vague and contextless as to be meanigless.
Steve admitted that the person he appraised Baha'is of is not a
"covenant breaker", so I'm at a loss to know what I should have been
seriously concerned about.
If Steve was so concerned about Baha'is reading messages from the
person, he could have given out the person's name to the list so that
people could choose whether to filter out messages from him. I asked
Steve for the person's name, and he took 9 months to provide it.
If Steve was simply concerned about Baha'is having their messages read
and archived by the person, then where does that lead to, and why
isn't Steve repeating his message here, since this stuff is being read
and archived by all and sundry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling
forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten
Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana
Majnun
Homepage
|