From: Smaneck <smaneck@aol.com>
Subject: Re: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please.
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 10:31 PM
Dear friends,
I had deliberately confined my call for a no vote to the AOL Message Board
where I found the disruptive behaviour and slanderous accusations of
censorship against the Baha'i Board which Mr. Glaysher was using to
promote
his newsgroup more than I could stomach. Since the participants on the Message
Board were in the best position to judge the falseness of Glaysher's statements
I asked them to express their outrage by voting at the use of this kind of
tactic by voting no. I had not intended for the call for a "no vote"
to go
beyond that list, but it seems Glaysher himself wishes to do this by posting
references to this here on the alt. list. So be it. I am therefore reposting
below the original messages I had placed on the AOL Message Board
regarding
this matter. The members of this list can decide for themselves whether this
call was justified. It is up to Mr. Glaysher himself to decide how far this
will go. If he ceases to use calmuny to promote his newsgroup then I will
withdraw my call for a "no" vote. If he continues then those who are
properly
informed of the truth of these matters should vote their conscience.
warmest, Susan
Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
Date: 12/12/98 1:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <19981212012948.21483.00001810@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Dear friends,
Under normal circumstances I would be the first to support the notion of an
unmoderated newsgroup. In the past I abstained from voting soley because I was
aware of the destructive motives of the person behind the proposed newsgroup.
Abstention may not however, be a strong enough measure to take against this
constant campaign of slander being used to promote this list. I therefore urge
anyone who objects to Fred's tactics to register their objections
by voting "no" in the interest poll.
warmest, Susan
Subject: Re: Reconsider the NO votes, please.
Date: 12/13/98 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <19981213231106.21480.00002792@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Dear Kevin,
Thanks for your considered opinion. You wrote:
>3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your
intention
>to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no.
Both
>actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted
>censorship by many neutral observers.
I am urging only those people on AOL who are offended by the slander
Fred has
used against this Message Board to promote his own news group to vote
"no." Had
I wished to mount a full-scale campaign against TRB I would also urge the
participants in Bahai Studies and the other lists I am involved to vote
"no" as
well. I am not doing this. When the TRB announcement was placed on Baha'i
Studies it was done by Ron House in a dignified manner without
attacking or distorting the activities of other lists. I therefore see no
reason to oppose it there. But the tactics which are being used to promote the
newsgroup here are unconscionable and a clear message needs to be delivered
that such methods will backfire.
warmest, Susan
Subject: Re: Message to Mark Foster
Date: 12/14/98 11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <19981214113637.00888.00003268@ng-bw1.aol.com>
Fred writes:
>I quote here too Kevin's rebuttal of her scurrilous attack:
Kevin did not at all suggest that what I had written about you was
scurrilous.
He was simply arguing that whatever tactics you are using to promote the list
do not justify a "no" vote. I disagree. There are other supporters of
trb that
have made the even stronger point that they do not support what you are doing
and it is unfair to scuttle the newsgroup because of your actions. They
have
even accused me of descending to your level (what a scathing criticism that
is!). They have a point, and that is why I have not broaden my call for a
"no"
vote to involve all the lists I participate on. But newsgroups ought not to be
approved as a result of campaigns of slander, therefore on the forums where
such slander is obvious to everyone, I urge those seeing it to register their
protest and call "foul" by voting no.
Susan
|