The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

Dermod Ryder

---

 

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:26 PM

"Brian Walker" <bfwalker@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:fed84403.0107140239.1a15cf7c@posting.google.com...
Hi Brian,
>
> but you are surely not serious? No way can any one or any group be
> scared of our poor little Fred. He is totally forgettable, any
> relevance any of his ideas possibly having now being far outweighed by
> the crass idiocy of his unutterably cretinous netbehaviour.

Fred's was the first unofficial site I came across on the Internet.  Reading
it was my first confirmation that aberrant behaviour in the AO here was, in
fact, almost universal in practice - it was not a purely UK phenomenon.  His
site is regarded as negative and essentially evil by the AO as a result.

I'm afraid the AO is not only scared of Fred - it is positively incontinent
at the thought or prospect of anybody (even me) standing up to it!  It
adopts the position of not alienating anybody who is likely to cause
trouble - lots of threats but only to those who will knuckle under them.
That's why the recent threats to declare certain people CBs are so much hot
air - more to encourage the faithful than intimidate the "enemies."

Names were put "on the street" to gauge the reaction if the AO were to
formally declare a fresh batch of CBs.  In light of the reaction I don't
expect any declarations - the lads know that hell will open up for them, if
they do it, in quarters where they are trying to establish their credibility
as good guys.  The same fear means that whatever they, you or I think of
Fred, under no circumstances will they formally notify him of his expulsion.
I am indeed surprised that they allow this topic to come up as regularly as
it does - it only serves to emphasise the old lack of intestinal fortitude
that permeates all levels of the AO.

>
> Now you, you big bad foul-reeking Fenian (do I go too far?) are
> another matter altogether.

Give you Orange B******* an inch and you'll try to take a mile - down the
Garvaghy Road!  A useful way of telling people that despite the differences
between Fenian and Prod in Northern Ireland, there are many of us who are
tolerant and both advocate and practice mutual respect - never mind taking
the piss out of and slagging each other!!  One can never go too far with
that aim in mind!

As ever,

Dermod

>
> All the best,
>
> Brian
>
> PS - just back on net ... lots happening, not all of it good. Cheers
> all!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:45 PM

"seegar" <calrow@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b4e60dc.23453769@news-server.optonline.net...

Dear Ceegar,

Irrespective of my opinion of Fred, which is of no relevance whatsoever, my
position on his standing is clear and concise: -

If he has been expelled, he is the first person who should have been
informed of this fact.  If this has not been done, nobody else should be
receiving information about his standing - full stop, period!

Enjoy that Ceegar!

Dermod.

PS. Personally I still prefer a fag with a mug of black Joe!

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:26:31 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Not until the gomers at Wilmette have the manners, courtesy and
intestinal
> >fortitude to tell Fred that they have expelled him.  Talk about the
essence
> >of sensitivity and confidentiality.  The world and his son can write to
the
> >gomers and get information about Fred's membership status, yet Fred has
been
> >told nothing officially.
> >
> >Sounds exactly like the AO and tends to support what I wrote earlier that
> >these people are incredibly stupid.
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> You insist and plead with everyone to look at Fred as a pathetic
> victim.  OK, let's look at this sterling example of victimhood. He
> insists that he is a "Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" How does he
> support this postulate of legitimacy. Well, he drones it into our
> skulls over and over that:
>
> >On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:26:45 -0400, "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good
Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:
> >Despite the slander of many fundamentalists among my
> >fellow bahais, I have been a member of the bahai faith since
> >1976. My ID Card may be found on my main bahai page.
>
> Fred conditions his membership based on his Bahai ID Card which he
> posts on his "Main" bahai page. Maybe Fred ought to post on his
> website the back of the ID card that reads "This card is the property
> of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United states
> with whom rests final decision as to its validity."
>
> Do you realy believe that Fred believes that the Administrative Order
> wouldn't have any thing to say about his continual maligning of the
> institutions of the Faith if he were still an enrolled Bahai? Do you
> think they might want to consult with him? No, according to Fred the
> "UHJ or it's underlings" etc. never say so much as "how do you do".
> Do you think Fred is intelligent enough to know that there might be
> something amiss? I think he is, but not enough  to know how foolish he
> makes himself look to the intelligent who can see through his silly
> charade.
>
> Consider  his campaign of advertizing and posting the details of the
> actions taken by the Administrative Order regarding former Bahais on
> his website.  His own postings spell out administrative actions that
> have been taken for behavior.  Do you think he reads his own posts? I
> assume so, however he is either in denial living in a fantasy world
> thinking he is a "Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" or he is hoping
> that your a sucker waiting to be taken. Dermod, I am sorry, you have
> been taken as a sucker evidenced by your parroting and preaching
> Fred's Dogma.  Don't expect us all to be this slow on the uptake.
>
> >
> >Sorry to upset your day,
>
> Hey Dermond don't be sorry. You haven't upset me a bit. I'm having a
> good day. I have my good days and my bad days. But today I feel good.
> Hope you're having a swell day yourself.
>
> >Ceegar!
> >
> That's "seegar" cause I always like to smoke a Don Diego with a cup of
> expresso first thing in the morning.  Some consider it a filthy habit
> but I'm a work in progress sinner-hey if George Burns lived to a
> hundred smoking 15 El Productos a day I feel one in the morning won't
> put me in the bone yard anytime soon:)
>
> Peace and Love,
>
> Chris

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Friday, July 20, 2001 3:23 PM

"Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:lDJYO541sMsqUSmxeU9kiv9xqyuc@4ax.com...
>
> Then there is a difference of opinion between you and the US National
> Center regarding your status in the US Baha'i community.  You believe
> you should still be regarded as a member in good standing.  The US
> National Center and/or the US National Spiritual Assembly disagree, as
> they removed your name from the rolls 2 years ago.
>
> Given the nature of your posts and communications here over the last
> several years, I am not surprised by National's decision.  But here is
> an opportunity to clear up your status.  If you feel that you were
> unjustly removed from the rolls, then by all means plead your case to
> the National Spiritual Assembly.

There is certainly a "difference of opinion" because it would appear that
the NSA has told everybody that it has removed Fred from the membership
lists .... everybody that is except Fred!

Far be it from me to suggest that he should have been the first to be
informed of this action - after all, I do appreciate that this is the NSA we
are talking about and making a bollix of a situation is its very purpose in
existence.  Now why should Fred plead his case when he has not been
officially told that he has been removed from the lists?  Surely if the NSA
had any honour at all it would summon up the courage to tell him what it had
done and apologise for the fact that it has told every other person about
its action but not the one directlt affected!

I realise that the concepts of honour, decency and honesty come hard to any
Bahai institution but they really are going to have to try harder if they
expect to garner any respect from other than the dedicated but small band of
weary apologists.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BIGS Bunch
Date: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:32 PM

"Charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3AC8C68E.19FCC2AA@mindspring.com...
> Hello.  Those of us in the "BIGS bunch" seem to waste a lotta time
> here.  I have lurked around for the last year or two and see the same
> things pop up from the disaffected bunch.  and i apologize for using the
> BIGS term....

Why apologise for using a term that everybody recognises?

>
> Have "we" ever tried ignoring this ng?  What would happen if we just did
> not interact anymore, and left "them" to their own accord?
>
> I say "we" in parenthesis because in no way am I a representative of the
> Blessed Administrative Order, and do not represent them in any shape or
> fashion.... yet also realize that the mere posting of this will be
> construed as some sort of "going for the juggular" or "not addressing
> the issue" etc.  (Ever time I address the issue, it is categorically
> ignored by the ones that accuse me of not addressing it!) This recent
> spat on the NM complaint is a case in point.  Absolutely zero progress
> in terms of any "change" from the non-BIGS bunch.

What do you expect?  Has it ever occurred to you that there just might be
some merit in the NM case - that things are not rosy down New Mexico way?
You know until you guys come out into the real world and show some
propensity for rational discourse, nothing is going to change.  Until you
start to realise that your Blessed AO does make mistakes and is not prepared
to rectify them because it has no reason so to do with unquestionning
adherents like you and yours, the BF is going nowhere fast.  Your Blessed AO
has a lot of explaining to do about things it has done and things it has not
done.  At its core is a concept of free and unfettered consultation. How can
that be when there is no free communication, when all Bahai publications are
"reviewed" as to what they can print?

>
> So I wonder if "we" stopped interacting, if this would no longer be any
> fun for those that fought so hard to get a non-moderated ng?  "Our"
> responses, no matter how well thought out and presented, have no effect.

Oh! To see a well thought out and presented case from you people - that
would be good.  Or even to see a line of enquiry - something like, "Does
anybody know WHAT is happening in New Mexico? or "Hell! Have things got this
bad that we are being taken to Court?" or perhaps and even better "Has
anybody any ideas how to sort this mess out - is there any way this thing
can be stopped from going to Court?"  Nothing like that just an expectation
that the world will bow down before your half baked arguments and total
astonishment that it doesn't!  Have you ever addressed the point of why it
is that these people have left your Faith that most of them once belonged
to?  Have you ever let it dawn upon you that the AO may not be doing its job
properly, that it might by its petty mindedness be driving out a lot of
people who, if left alone to do their own thing might be an asset to your
Faith?

In this day and age the onus is on you to think for yourself based on your
own toil in investigating what is truth and what isn't.  On the bottom line
the only argument advanced on this topic by AO apologists has been that the
BF cannot be sued in a Court of law to make it adhere to its own rules and
the rules imposed by the civil law.  It is a specious argument that will not
convince anybody with but a modicum of knowledge.  Now why do you think it
should impress the disaffected bunch - amongst whom are some of the greatest
scholars of the BF, discarded and booted out by ignoranmuses?  Why should it
change when not one argument advanced by the AO apologists stands up to
scrutiny?

But you trot away off to a cloud cuckoo land where all is well in the BF
despite falling membership and periodic financial crises.  When people don't
care they don't pay.  And you trot away off to Peter Khan's land where the
emphasis is on putting marble into Haifa rather than the Light of God into
the hearts and minds of the world.  You know the foundations of the New
World Order have already been built in the world  and construction is moving
along without Bahais being involved or indeed even recognising that it is
happening.  The Revelation has moved on and left you to your safe fora on
the Internet and marble on the mountain.

Enjoy them!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BIGS Bunch
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:53 AM

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9abou601rhh@news1.newsguy.com...
> Well, sort of.  All of the questions that Mr. Ryder suggests are a little
> premature at the moment.  All we have is the complaint.  In that sense,
> Charles is absolutely right, and, frankly, I don't quite understand Mr.
> Ryder's chastising some of us for deciding to take a wait and see attitude
> with respect to what might or might not need to be done in Albuquerque.
>
> The only issues that can be reasonably discussed, at this point, are the
> legal issues that would apply to the allegations raised in the complaint.
> If Mr. Ryder thinks that these issues ought not be discussed, then one
> wonders why Mr. Ryder has spent so much time participating in that
> discussion.

The legal issues cannot be fruitfully discussed here simply because nobody
here has the inside track on the issues, evidence and the manoeuvres going
on off centre stage.  This is not a Legal forum - it is a Bahai one.  The
issues that could fruitfully be discussed are those arising from this case
that, if applied, would tend towards a better dissemination of the BF and
the actual arrival of entry by troops rather than its forecast imminence -
forecasts started in 1485, I think!

What could also be discussed is not the prospects of either side winning
this case in the Courts but the underlying situation that has led to this
Complaint being filed.  What has gone wrong in this community?  Why?  What
action could have been taken to avoid it in the first place?  Given that
such action was not successful, what can be done now to resolve the
situation and what lessons can be learned and applied for the future?

Of course if you just want to deny the legitimacy of the Court's
jurisdiction in this matter and take yourselves off TRB - fine by me.  As
one who would like to see the adminocentric faith implode and self destruct,
I rejoice in the tactical manoeuvring towards that objectve.

You're all doing a grand job!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Toppling the Baha'i Faith, or Saving It?
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2001 5:03 AM

"GS Goldberg" <ssgt_goldberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11383-3AE0E6FD-196@storefull-168.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Is there anyone here actively trying to discredit and ultimately disband
> the Baha'i faith (other than Mr. Mahdi, I guess)?  What exactly are
> those of you trying to achieve when you attack the Faith, its teachings
> or its principals?  Many Baha'is I know consider talk.religion.bahai and
> alt.religion.bahai nothing more than slanderous poison.  I'd like to
> know exactly where the contributors to this discussion group are coming
> from and what is your objective.

I cannot speak for other than myself on this one - not for those I count as
"liberals" for want of a better definition and certainly not for those who
appear as "fundamentalists".

You are quite correct in stating that many Bahais regard these fora as
"slanderous poison" and I would guess that few either know in detail or
comprehend the issues that have been raised here and are/were the subject of
the discourse.  You see a lot of "liberals" believe that the expulsion of
Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny, without due prior consultation, was an
act of fascist terrorism.  They think that the New Mexico law suit is long
overdue as the national institutions either ignore or connive in the type of
alleged corruption that is at its heart.  They view the suppression of
"Dialogue", the mendacious denunciation of "A Modest Proposal" and the
purging of liberals from the Faith as being contrary to its principles.
They see a Faith that numerically is in decline and therefore not fulfilling
its mission.  They observe Bahais acquiescing in this decline, unconcerned
about it, perhaps even secretly encouraging it to better further their
ambitions to attain rank within the administrative order.

They see apologists arise not with answers but with cant - those who say
that such things CANNOT happen within the Faith as they are not SUPPOSED to
happen within the Faith and nary a one sees or wishes to see the fallacy
inherent in this stance.

And therein lies the rub - a religion at whose core is CONSULTATION and
investigation of truth performs neither.  Bahais don't know and don't want
to know the liberal argument because they prefer the comfort of ignorance;
the fear that knowledge or acceptance of its veracity will undermine their
faith in the administrative order, whose very word they have been told is
infallible.

But the Faith is not the AO - the AO exists to serve it, not be the object
thereof.  The real Faith doesn't need an AO - it has to do with the heart
and the actions of the individual.  The real Faith is inclusivist, not
doctrinaire.  You can talk in terms of Unity in Diversity and think that if
you have many racial groups included you have diversity.  That is only and
the easiest form of  unity in diversity.  The real thing is reconciling,
accepting and tolerating people of vastly differing belief systems.  How do
you get Jew and Arab to co-exist peacefully in the Middle East, Serb and
Muslim in the Balkans, Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland?  You do
it through a long arduous process of fostering acceptance, mutual respect,
tolerance, mediation and conflict resolution.  This involves, inter alia,
bringing contending parties to the table for consultation on their
differences.  You cannot change or undo those differences but you can lead
people to a lessening of fear, a building of respect and confidence and a
living together, if not in love then at least in peace.

There is no consultation within the BF - it throws the liberals out and so
they gather here and other places and put their argument, often (and why
not?) in a robust fashion.

I can't say whether it will result in a saving of the BF or not - I can
however say that if you want to save the BF (and that decision lies with the
Bahais alone), certain things will have to change - like the attitude which
expels rather than reconciles.  Personally I think it is of little
consequence whether the BF is saved or not - for truth is that the
Revelation lives in the world, belongs to the world (and not the BF) and is
slowly being worked through.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: I have nothing to do with the election of the UHJ (was: something else)
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 4:20 AM

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AE792F3.BB033F6A@ameritel.net...

Hi Pat,

> Personally, I find shunning much better than relaying nasty dreams, or
claiming
> that 'Abdu'l Baha wrote bad things about Baha'is, etc. and so on.
Shunning
> shows more toleration than blind hatred.  When I read the "GUESS WHO SAID
THIS
> ABOUT BAHA'IS" message I thought to myself, this was an utterly marvelous
world
> where MrMahdi might have brought in a friend who can read 'Abdu'l Baha,
spell
> "Baha'i" and insult us, rather than just read the propaganda, tell us it
is
> "bahai" and all quite thoroughly refuted.  If MrMahdi shunned us, his
blind
> hatred wouldn't be so visible, would it?

Don't feel hatred for Mahdi - feel sorry for him that he is a blind, nasty,
bigoted eedjit of the first order.  But never shun him because, who knows
but that one day another brain cell may start to function and he will come
to realise that his diatribe of hatred is not good for either his physical
or spiritual well-being.  That can only happen if discourse, no matter how
rancorous, is continued.

I have been the object of semi-official shunning by the AO in this little
part of the world.  It has been initiated by fear - fear that I might spread
some erroneous teachings to some or all of any BIGS I might come into
contact with.  I am flattered that the scions of the AO think that I know
enough about the BF to be able to render some informed discourse thereon,
which might convert others to my way of thinking.  I am impressed that they
regard "little old me" as a threat to their rigidly imposed views and
doctrines.  I am honoured that some BIGS have told me that I'm not the
proto-CB they had been warned to expect. But mostly I "is over the moon"
that such blind hatred is purveyed by the New World Order (sick) - what a
grand reassurance that things ain't going to chance if these loonies ever
get into any position of responsibility.

> My mother used to say that when you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.
> Shunning is an extension of this.

Shunning is the ultimate act of hatred and an attempt to force one's POV on
another.  You really want to read up about Captain Boycott and the (later)
Irish War of Independence in which shunning played a pivotal role.

 When somebody is told to divorce a spouse because that spouse has adopted a
different belief system, that is an act of violence against a family and a
perversion of the Unity espoused in the BF.  Gathering together, in Unity, a
load of prats who already agree with each other is dead easy - gathering in
a unity, people who not only don't agree with each other but are prepared to
kill to prove the point, is a trifle more difficult.  Sorry to disagree with
your mother but Abdul Baha said that we were to make friends of our enemies
not just say nothing about them.

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Albuquerque - some corroboration
Date: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:42 AM

"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3aea8e33.0@news.acay.com.au...
> Pat,
> And how is this corroboration for the lawsuit being currently exploited by
> wannabee internet lawyers?  Are you expecting this to be entered in this
> court case or is it just for our interest?
> Mark

Elderberry,

Who knows?  Wouldn't it be fun if this account were to turn up in evidence
along with a dozen more like it?  That would be some laxative!

Aren't the allegations in the lawsuit corroborated by this account to
greater or lesser extent?  The Plaintiff alleged that an individual referred
to himself as the voice of God and here's another account which says that
the individual referred to himself as the voice of God? Isn't that
corroboration or in Bahaispeak is it just two enemies of the Faith saying
things that BIGS don't like?  Duh!

Like I said to Herr Schaut - you gomers would be much better off putting the
house in order rather than coming here and elsewhere making inane comments
about this case.  That it has been filed in Court is indisputable - what
should worry you is whether or not there are more of them coming down the
line.

Of course if any of you had a working brain between the ears (or indeed in
any other part of the anatomy) you'd keep quiet here and devote your efforts
to terrorising anybody else who would have the unmitigated gall to take the
blessed AO to Court.  Or maybe that explains the absence of Herr Schaut and
his ilk. Duuuuh!

> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE9FE24.CBD9DB5B@ameritel.net...
> > Allahu Abha!
> >
> > Some weeks back, shortly after this story broke, there was some interest
> > in getting additional anecdoes about the Albuquerque LSA.  At the time,
> > I didn't see much details, just generalization.  Recently, I did find
> > some details on another forum.  I am reposting here, without the authors
> > expressed written consent - my thinking is that if/when they find out I
> > did this, they can claim it for themsleves, ignore it, or complain to
> > the US Navy and get an apology.  In the mean time, I'd like to think
> > that a few questions are answered.  I did try to blank out some personal
> > details to try to maintain some possible anonymity.
> >
> > Blessings!
> > - Pat
> > kohli@ameritel.net
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> >
> > Since Albuquerque has been in the Baha'i headlines lately, allow me to
> > reminisce a little about some of my own experiences in perhaps one of
> > the most dysfunctional and loonier local Baha'i communities in the
> > world.
> >
> > I came to the Albuquerque Baha'i community in 1989 _________ and it was
> > as a result of my own experiences with the Albuquerque Baha'i community
> > which began the process of finally turning me off the religion
> > completely. Interestingly it was with those same cast of characters
> > mentioned in Yorgos Marinakis' complaint that I went through my own
> > travails.
> >
> > My first encounter with the LSA of Albuqueruque was in early Spring
> > 1991. I was a spectator in an anti-war rally outside of Zimmerman
> > library on the campus of UNM (University of New Mexico),
> > _______________, a few days before the beginning of the Gulf War. To
> > make a long story short, it seems one of the local Baha'is (or an
> > employee of Channel 41 where Victory works, I never found out who) had
> > spotted me and another Baha'i there and reported both of us to Kambiz
> > Victory (the self proclaimed "voice of God" in the deposition). Within a
> > few days after the rally I recieved a phone call from an Assembly member
> > informing me in curt fashion that I had participated in a "partisan
> > political rally" and so therefore was in violation of Baha'i law. When I
> > met with the LSA, a string of unsubstantiated charges and accusations
> > were hurled right and left by the LSA about my "political activities"
> > and how they were damaging to the Faith, etc. No amount of pleading with
> > them did any good, and one Assembly member even went so far as to state
> > that he believed that Baha'u'llah himself would
> > support Operation Desert Storm, encouraged the big stick policy where
> > international affairs were concerned, and as such so should all Baha'is
> > without exception (regardless of whether they believed in the justness
> > or injustice of the war and the fight for America's Mid East petroleum
> > interests). ________________ This passed.
> >
> > A few short months later I had borrowed William Miller's *The Baha'i
> > Faith: Its History and Teachings* from the library and one of the
> > Baha'is had found out about it and reported me to the Assembly. Victory
> > called me shortly thereafter and asked if I might come over to his house
> > and bring the book with me. The meeting was friendly and cordial, at the
> > end of which
> > Victory made a personal request that after I was finished with the book
> > if I could please make photocopies of the pictures of the Bab and
> > Baha'u'llah for him. About a week later I recieved a highly inflammatory
> > letter from the LSA among other things accusing me of having made
> > photocopies of the pictures in the book and distributing them all over
> > New Mexico, and also expressing alarm at the state of my soul for
> > reading a book "by a covenant breaker" (note:- Miller was never a Baha'i
> > in the first place, but a Presbyterian Missionary who spent something
> > like 30 years in Iran, and who culled some of his sources for the book
> > from one Jalal Azal, a descendent of Mirza Yahya Nuri Subh Azal). The
> > Assembly then called and asked to meet with me. The meeting with the LSA
> > - attended also by _____________ in my defense - was an inquisition.
> > Among other things, the Assembly demanded I surrender the book to them
> > immediately. I refused. When I pointed out that it was Mr. Kambiz
> > Victory who had asked that I make a personal photocopy of the pictures
> > of Baha'u'llah and the Bab for him, he denied it. The meeting ended with
> > me sticking to my guns and without any mutually satisfactory resolution.
> > I returned the book to the library the next day but ordered a copy of my
> > own from the university bookstore. A week later I recieved another, even
> > more inflammatory, letter from the LSA threatening me with future
> > sanctions should I ever behave so disrespectfully towards the LSA and
> > its demands ever again. I told myself that Kambiz Victory and the
> > Albuquerque LSA can go lump it, and from thereon I decided to go
> > inactive, only occasionally attending Feast, and that due more to
> > _________.
> >
> > The next year and a half I mostly sat on the sidelines and watched. I
> > witnessed an Assembly that became increasingly more authoritarian and
> > paranoid in its modus operandi. It encouraged believers to spy on other
> > believers for actual or percieved infringements of Baha'i law,
> > particularly of unmarried couples living together or people who made the
> > slightest criticism of the Assembly. I constantly heard malicious
> > backbiting about other believers the Assembly did not like and had
> > blacklisted - Deborah Buchhorn being one of them - and even witnessed
> > once when at Feast during the consultation portion when the chairman of
> > the Assembly ran across the room and forcefully pulled a microphone out
> > of a believers hand and called an immediate halt to consultation as the
> > believer was about to criticize one
> > of the LSA's policies.
> >
> > In the late summer of 1992 a close friend of mine and of another local
> > Baha'i's, due to our friendship and fellowship with her, decided to
> > become a Baha'i herself. At the time when she declared, I was not in the
> > United States, since I was ____________________. However, I came back to
> > find that just as soon as she had declared, she was totally turned off
> > by the LSA and the Baha'is of Albuquerque. Now this friend owned a huge
> > two storey house off the campus of UNM with 8 rooms several of which she
> > rented out for extra income in order to keep up with her mortgage. There
> > were men and women living in the house - _____________ - but there was
> > absolutely no hanky-panky whatsoever going on among the people there
> > __________ were mostly friends and also because most of the people
> > living there were serious spiritual practioners of one sort or another.
> > Besides ________________ had Tibetan Buddhists, a Sufi and a Hindu
> > devotee of Abi Da/Da Free John and her young son. Immediately after she
> > declared, after being welcomed to the Baha'i community, the LSA informed
> > her that she was in violation of Baha'i law for cohabitating. Any and
> > all explanations fell on deaf ears - showing how far in the gutter the
> > mind of the LSA actually was - so she fell inactive shortly thereafter
> > and not long after that resigned from the Baha'i faith. She was badly
> > backbitten by some, a few of the more looney local Baha'is even claimed
> > she held "wild swingers parties and orgies at her home." The question is
> > how would they have known unless they themselves had attended these
> > "wild swingers parties"!
> >
> > The departure of my friend from the Baha'i faith was testimony to a
> > greater problem in the Albuqueruque Baha'i community, and obviously of
> > the Baha'i community worldwide, and what I have come to call the
> > "revolving door phenomenon." I remember that at one point there were
> > something like 400 Baha'is on the rolls in Albuquerque during election
> > time. Out of that many people, I can honestly say that maybe 30 to 50
> > people (maximum) ever came to Feast or that I had ever saw at any one
> > time. From a community of 400 people maybe 40 people ever voted for the
> > LSA each Ridvan. People would just leave as soon as they came in, and I
> > would sometimes run into people on Campus who would inform me they had
> > once been Baha'is but had since moved on, yet never bothered to tell the
> > LSA or the local Baha'is about it. One family, however, I do remember
> > simply came and donated every single one of their Baha'i books back to
> > the Albuquerque community. It was there way of saying "later...see ya
> > wouldn't wanna be ya"!
> >
> > In late 1993, a particularly obnoxious Muslim Iranian student at UNM,
> > who was once a Revolutionary Guard in Iran (paasdaar) and who later
> > turned out to have had ties to the Intelligence services of the
> > government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (he would regularly spy and
> > report on the activities of the Iranian students (non-Baha'i and Baha'i
> > alike) at the university), without getting into the specific details,
> > threatened me and another Iranian at the International Center of the
> > University of New Mexico. This individual had had numerous complaints
> > made about him by some female international students, two of whom he had
> > apparently assaulted sexually (he was later deported from the United
> > States). I went and filed a report with the UNM Police who charged him
> > and had him temporarily expelled from the university. Because a series
> > of complaints and a threat had been made on the Campus of the
> > university, the University and the City had enough to try him for
> > disorderly conduct, so I became the city's witness against this
> > individual. The LSA found out about the situation and demanded that I
> > drop the case arguing that it would adversely affect the Baha'is in
> > Iran. When I told them it was not my case to drop and that I was the
> > City's witness, they would have none of it. I then recieved an
> > accusatory letter from the LSA to that effect, full of bogus guilt trips
> > and the like, but as usual I discarded their ridiculous advice,
> > especially this one which was making a plea to allow a guilty man to
> > walk scott free. A few weeks later Mr. Kambiz Victory and I had a heated
> > telephone conversation, where Victory ordered me to "drop the case" and
> > follow the LSA's "instructions" or else! When I informed him that
> > neither he nor the LSA had any jurisdiction in the matter, he got even
> > more irate, and informed me I had problems with the covenant. I told him
> > he was out of line to tell me anything to that effect, and, besides,
> > just who the hell did he think he was. His reponse, as the one to Ms.
> > Debrah Buchhorn, was "I am God in this city and whatever I say is His
> > word."
> >
> > There is much, much more one could relate about Albuquerque and the
> > cultlike reality and atmosphere of the Baha'is and the LSA, but I'll
> > leave it at that for now.
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Censorship on SRB
Date: Sunday, April 29, 2001 10:50 AM

<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3aeb2a39.4524705@news.aros.net...
> I will probably never get posted on that newsgroup being by their
> preverse definition a "CB" but it is interesting to note that when I
> go to the newsgroups alt.religion.bahai and talk. religin.bahai have
> 10 or 13 new posts in half a day, while in 3 days I came across 2
> whole posts on this moderated group, guess most bahais on it dont have
> much to say after "I agree".

Sorry guys, you are mistaken - it isn't censorship on SRB.  Actually they
have all either gone AWOL or have fallen asleep or maybe off the cliff in
which case, we ought to call the Coastguard to fish them out of the water.
Mind you that would waken them up!

I think that they have all gone to sleep - after all, sitting at the control
desk just waiting for posts, with precious few appearing and those that do,
interminably boring, would send any sane individual off to the land of nod.
No inference, of any kind whatsoever, however, should be drawn from that
statement as to the sanity or otherwise of anybody on SRB.

Now for the evidence of this assertion - I sent the following post and
haven't heard a word since, not a cheep.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Opening of terraces on mount Carmel, web broadcast?

>
> "Sizwe Cawe" <Cawe@getafix.utr.ac.za> wrote in message
> news:bo9YYB.A.XWE.hSB56@bounty.bcca.org...
> > Allah'u'Abha
> >
> > The opening of the terraces will be broadcast live on the
internet.
>
> I understand edited highlights are to be shown on The Truman Show on
Irish
> Television.
>
> As ever,
>
> Dermod.
>

It's not as if it is a complicated message or anything like that, so  -
WAKEN UP LADS! AT ONCE!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Re: From the attorney
Date: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:10 PM

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9f954g01ko8@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > While being pedantic, you manage to prove my point.  Thank you.
>
> > And what point is that?
>
> It should be obvious.
>
> > > That certainly explains how you've managed to fail to address the
whole
> > > issue regarding the Lemon test.
>
> > Au contraire
>
> You did, indeed, point out that the statutes under which organizations
might
> incorporate themselves pass the Lemon test.  We aren't talking about
> statues, however.  We're talking about applying the Lemon test to the
> actions of the court itself.

How do you apply a test regarding the applicability of statutes, to the
actions of the Court which is charged with applying that test in cases
involving the religious corporations?

> If you think the Lemon test ought not apply to actions of the court
itself,
> then I suggest you take a look at Serbian Orthodox Diocese.

A matter of doctrine!
>
> I will, again, ask the question you have yet to answer: how might the
court
> determine whether or not any of the alleged acts constitute fraud without
> interpreting Baha'i Writings?

US Courts do not intervene in cases involving doctrine unless said doctrines
are contrary to law - e.g. polygamy in the Mormon case.  FYI, fraud is a
criminal act, the proving of which before a Court does not involve Bahai
Writings.

The Declaration of Trust of incorporated assemblies is not a part of the
Writings.  It constitutes a statement of the aims and objects of the
Assembly, the methods it will use to achieve them (which are generally
within the required definitions to secure tax exemption status) and the
rules whereby it will conduct its business.  I understand these rules must
conform to aspects of the Statute law if the Corporation is to be
registered.  They become thereby a Covenant between the Assembly, its
members AND the State which grants corporate status and the benefits derived
therefrom.  The State and the members have a legitimate interest in ensuring
that corporations abide by the terms of the Covenant - for Covenant Breaking
is indeed a spiritual disease as well as being contrary to the Civil Law, in
this instance.

It is my understanding, that of the Plaintiff and her Attorney and probably
many on this list, that this is a civil suit as to the proper implementation
of civil and not religious law.  You seem to think differently - that First
Amendment protection extends to all aspects of this Assembly's business and
that it can do as it pleases because the Courts would have to interpret
Bahai law to review any of its actions and are constitutionally barred from
so doing.  Why then did the Court move against the Mormon Church on the
matter of church doctrine of polygamy?  Surely the Mormon Church was
entitled to First Amendment protection on this?

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:38 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010709222546.11556.00006469@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >If Fred has been expelled
> >how is it that he has not been told of this by the NSA?
>
> And for the umpteenth time Fred was not informed of his removal from the
rolls
> because he told the Institutions he would consider any attempt to contact
him
> as a harrassment. So they accomodated his wishes.

Or they are shit scared of him.  Seems as good, if not better, an
explanation than this!

Once again we have a lack of due process of any kind other than that which
appeals to the comfort of the AO.  Proves what I've always believed - kick a
bully in the ass and his shirt tail won't touch in his haste to get away.

So unless Fred stops posting his claim OR the AO has the manners to tell him
that he is out (which decision he could appeal) we're just going to have
this old favourite crop up again and again.  Of course that he might appeal
such a decision to the House might be a powerful motive not to notify him
that he has been fired ....

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:26 PM

"seegar" <calrow@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b4cdb7e.2200312@news-server.optonline.net...
> Well Fred, looks like it's about time to take down that bogus ID Card
> on your website don't you think?

Not until the gomers at Wilmette have the manners, courtesy and intestinal
fortitude to tell Fred that they have expelled him.  Talk about the essence
of sensitivity and confidentiality.  The world and his son can write to the
gomers and get information about Fred's membership status, yet Fred has been
told nothing officially.

Sounds exactly like the AO and tends to support what I wrote earlier that
these people are incredibly stupid.

Sorry to upset your day, Ceegar!

>
> >On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:26:45 -0400, "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good
Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:
>
> >Despite the slander of many fundamentalists among my
> >fellow bahais, I have been a member of the bahai faith since
> >1976. My ID Card may be found on my main bahai page.
>
>
> >On 11 Jul 2001 11:51:05 -0700, bighappymonkey@yahoo.com (Dave Fiorito)
wrote:
>
> >>bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote in message
news:<9iho1l$72v$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> >>
> >>> If there is anything in writing stating that Fred has been
> >>> disenrolled from the Baha'i Faith, let that be produced...
> >>
> >>Michael - here it is:
> >>
> >>Subject: Status of Fredrick Glaysher
> >>
> >>
> >>To:  Mr. David Fiorito
> >>
> >>Dear Baha'i Friend,
> >>
> >>In response to your inquiry about the status of Mr. Fredrick Glaysher,
> >>the records of the Baha'i National Center reflect that Mr. Glaysher's
> >>name was removed from the membership rolls in February 1999, and he is
> >>not considered to be a member of the Baha'i Faith.
> >>
> >>With loving Baha'i greetings,
> >>
> >>****** * *********
> >>For the Office of the Secretary
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - After over five years of observing the tactics of bahai fundamentalists,
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:42 PM

"Patrick Bateman" <aaaaaaaaaa@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:oBNp7.40800$jy6.1755982977@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> Funny..however all religions have fundamentalists, and frankly, the Bahai
> fundamentalist in comparision is quite tame.

My dear Patrick,

How true!  Your typical Bahai fundamentalist is quite tame in comparison to
your extreme Muslim fundamentalist but I have no doubt that, in time, this
balance will be redressed.  When they have reached beyond this current
embryonic stage and attained maturity, your average Bahai fundamentalist
will be every bit as proficient, if not more so, than any fundamentalist
currently in play.  After all are not Bahais expected to excel in all things
especially fundamentalism?

On current trends they should be every bit as nasty to the next
Manifestation as other fundamentalists are to their Manifestation today.

As ever,

Dermod.

>
>
> > 1. Always smear and attack the individual.
>
> 1. Physically smearing and attacking the individual.
>
>
> > 2. Lure into supposed discussion then cut the jugular.
>
> 2. Lures Bahai's into supposed police station for "questioning", then
> promptly cuts the jugular vein.
>
>
> > 3. Work together to create the perception for non-bahais
> > that the individual is unbalanced, aberrant, etc....
>
> Works together with other Muslims to show Bahai's, or whatever other
> minority religion that they are non-believers and force them to recant
their
> beliefs.(See revolution)
>
>
> > 4. Change or ignore the subject.
>
> I don't know if I can satirize this statement because there is nothing
> really that wrong with it.
>
>
> > 5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
> > how, etc....
>
> Shift to the past by growing out hair, creating an oppressed society,
> mocking women and making them useless in society by not allowing them to
go
> to school, etc. etc. etc.
>
>
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:03 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109181342.305d46cc@posting.google.com...
Dave,

>  How does any of this constitute
> "hounding" or even come close to an act of terror on the scale of the
> events of September 11th?

Lived with terrorism this thirty years past, none of which, fortunately, was
on a scale comparable with the events of 11 September.  It was and is still
terrorism however!  It need not involve killing to be terrorism - it just
has to be the threat of violence or some other measure designed to terrorise
a individual or society into accepting a circumstance or set of values that
it would not otherwise accept.  Something like threatening a BIGs with being
declared a Covenant Breaker, with all of the social penalties that entails,
because he doesn't toe the party line.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:27 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109190629.2f671fa1@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9o8jqd$bnmsa$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Something like threatening a BIGs with being declared a Covenant
Breaker,
> > with all of the social penalties that entails, because he doesn't toe
the
> > party line.
>
>
> Dermod,
>
> Have I ever done that?  No.  So I'll ask again - how have I ever
> "terrorized" Fred - or anyone for that matter.  Is there anything -
> even in _that_ post - That was a threat?  Hardly.  So apart from
> pointing out the fact that Fred is not, as he claims, a Baha'i in good
> standing and getting hyper angry at him once (for which I have
> apologized) what have I ever done that constituted "terrorism"?

Firstly I did not accuse you of threatening to call anybody a CB.  So I
could conclude the tone of your post above is an attempt to intimidate me
into withdrawing what I said.  That is a form of terrorism.  But I won't
accuse you of terrorism - just note that control of the temper is a must for
any form of reasoned discourse.  BTW I can understand why many Americans are
upset this past week - without wishing to seem arrogant, I've been through
this same type of experience on many occasions many years ago. I know it and
know how to cope with and overcome it.  You get on with your normal life for
that is the greatest spurning you can give the terrorist - the knowledge
that he has not succeeded in terrorising you.

Fred is not the most liked or admired person on TRB - BIGS just don't like
and really get their knickers in a knot over him.  I have to ask why this
is?  It's not because of nastiness - after all nobody tackled me for telling
Evensong to "fuck off" or giving the same message to Miss Maddy - it was
actually a toss-up as to which of them would be told to "fuck off" but
Evensong won because he is obnoxious whilst Maddy is just a buffoon.  But
then everybody knows that Evensong and Maddy are nasty arseholes and
therefore, nobody cares if they are told where to go, by me or anybody else.

But all of you BIGS really give Fred the "Hate Week" treatment - these past
few days have seen threats of litigation, something, incidentally of which I
thought there was general agreement that  it was a subject to which none
would stoop.  And then Eureka!  I realised why Fred gets the treatment he
does - his spamming and his website are a threat to the AO, a clear and
present danger, for Fred has painstakingly not only assembled the evidence
of the canker within but he constantly publicises it to the extent that he
really gets up noses and AO noses at that!  Worst of all, however is that
Fred is uncontrollable - he's a true mad dog in your eyes and you don't know
how to deal with him.

Now BIGS idolise the love bomb technique but never use it on Fred for he's
immune.  He knows the system intimately and he knows how to counteract with
pithy comments advising you all to pith off!

I basically agree with him that the AO terrorises people - terror is more
than bombs or kamikaze aircraft.  A whispered aside in the right
circumstances can instil terror (like a threat to be made a CB) - most
ethnic cleansing is carried out by a piece of "good" advice to the effect
that one would be better off NOT living in this neighbourhood, from a
gentleman who is known or assumed to have the "right connections" to ensure
the advice is heeded.  Twenty years ago the AO tried that particular
threatening tactic on with me and were told where they could stick it!
Others can also testify to that including Dennis Rogers whose experiences
were posted on TRB recently.  And you guys hate Fred for this, for his
continued exposing of the sewer that the AO has become.  Of course you all
hate Juan, Alison, Michael, Nima etc as well and for the same reason and
give them the same treatment but somewhat reduced for they don't post as
much as Fred who is just a real pain in the butt for doing what he does so
well!

Fred is an avid counter terrorist and he's good at it as the whimpering from
the BIGS proves!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: relevant quotes
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:17 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109190605.306997cb@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9o8ele$bbpb4$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> > My dear fellow,
> >
> > Can you learn to differentiate between "stern criticism" and "attacks"?
>
> Calling Baha'is terrorists and accusing the UHJ of murder is "stern
> criticism"?  I call them attacks.

Actually I think that noting that the AO is not adverse to using
intimidatory tactics (terrorism by a nicer turn of phrase) is not
unjustified.  It can also be noted that the AO had "motive" for terminating
Daniel Jordan in that he was apparently homosexual, a condition that is
anathema to it.  Is it the case that making observations to this effect is
an attack?  I don't think so!
>
> > Those who criticise do not necessarily attack.
>
> Karen and Juan critisize - Fred attacks.

In your opinion but perhaps Karen's "criticism" is more effective than
Fred's "attacks"; on the other hand it may be that one complements the other
>
> > Criticism is largely justified as a means of having grievances
redressed -
> > attack is an attempt to destroy.
>
> Consultation is the method given by Baha'u'llah as the means to
> address grievances.  Criticism was, for the most part, condemned.

Tell that to Alison!  And before you get on your high horse - the onus of
initiating consultation rests on the institution that decided to expel her
without giving any notice beforehand.  It's antics like this that makes the
AO appear the total little shits they really are!

>
> > If you cannot or choose not to distinguish between them, you'll
> > never be able to distinguish between your friends and your foes!
>
> As long as people silently approve of Fred's actions he will be seen
> as being allied with folks like you, Karen, Juan, et al.

A hell of a sight better than being aligned with Semple, Khan and the rest
of the vipers together with their toadies and brown nosed devotees.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: relevant quotes
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 5:12 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109200720.1ce9af6b@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9ob5h1$c3drb$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Actually I think that noting that the AO is not adverse to using
> > intimidatory tactics (terrorism by a nicer turn of phrase) is not
> > unjustified.
>
> Terrorism has a specific political meaning - causing fear in others
> either intentionaly or unintentionaly in not terrorism.  Otherwise
> they would have to arrest Stephen King.

So threatening to have somebody declared a CB is NOT intimidation and not
terrorism therefore.  The essence of terrorism is that it is the use or
threat of use of violence so as to achieve an objective.  The AO threatens
dissidents with the tag of CB so as to shut them up.  That's terrorism!

> > It can also be noted that the AO had "motive" for terminating
> > Daniel Jordan in that he was apparently homosexual, a condition that is
> > anathema to it.  Is it the case that making observations to this effect
is
> > an attack?  I don't think so!
>
>
> Sure it is.  The homosexuality is not a cause for murder.  There is
> nothing in this world that justifies homocide of any kind - with the
> exception of self defence where your life is being threatened.  So yes
> saying the AO had a motive because Dan Jordan might have been gay is
> an attack.  See Nima's comment on that subject.

Saying that the AO had a motive is not an attack - it is a statement of
fact.  If the said person were homosexual and given that that condition is
sternly condemned within the AO then it has motive for removing the person
from the scene.  That is not the same as accusing it of doing so.
I believe the Aqdas justifies homicide by way of capital punishment which is
hardly self defence.

> > > > Those who criticise do not necessarily attack.
> > >
> > > Karen and Juan critisize - Fred attacks.
> >
> > In your opinion but perhaps Karen's "criticism" is more effective than
> > Fred's "attacks"; on the other hand it may be that one complements the
other
>
> My opinion is not the issue.  Objectively speaking the pattern and
> timing of Fred's comments makes them attacks.  He crafts his messages
> in such a way to evoke anger in his audience.  Those are attacks.

On the contrary - Fred's "anger" reflects more of his concern, sorrow and
frustration at the prevailing conditions and a desire to rectify them.  You,
like the AO, cannot see this because the AO is perfect!  I think the anger
that emerges from the AO is more the result of the correctness of what Fred
says than anything else - it is the typical anger of the guilty!

>
> > > Consultation is the method given by Baha'u'llah as the means to
> > > address grievances.  Criticism was, for the most part, condemned.
> >
> > Tell that to Alison!  And before you get on your high horse - the onus
of
> > initiating consultation rests on the institution that decided to expel
her
> > without giving any notice beforehand.  It's antics like this that makes
the
> > AO appear the total little shits they really are!
>
> It is her responsibility to appeal.  The UHJ made their decision under
> the assurance that Alison had been made aware of their concerns.  Now
> the ball is in her court.

Has the House told you that? Because it has never told Alison.  In Haifa and
the AO the right hand knoweth not what the left hand is doing!  Nothing
unusual in that!

> > > > If you cannot or choose not to distinguish between them, you'll
> > > > never be able to distinguish between your friends and your foes!
> > >
> > > As long as people silently approve of Fred's actions he will be seen
> > > as being allied with folks like you, Karen, Juan, et al.
> >
> > A hell of a sight better than being aligned with Semple, Khan and the
rest
> > of the vipers together with their toadies and brown nosed devotees.
>
> I am not aligned with Mr. Kahn or Mr. Semple - I am aligned with the
> Universal House of Justice.

Of which they are members!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: losin yr bahai cool
Date: Sunday, September 23, 2001 8:51 PM

Poor old Night Shadow can't stand the heat so he's away off with Reini to
indulge in self congratulatory praise as to how they endured the vacuous on
TRB and failed to conquer.  As to his point that those who are critical
should suspend that activity and, instead, work to expand the numbers in the
BF - there's more than enough evidence to show that when good people join
and refuse to go along with the cant, trying instead to effect reform, they
are ostracised, vilified and cast out as rejects.  To further confuse dear
Chas - been there, done that, got totally pissed off and pissed off as a
result.

As I have always said, the proof of any pudding being in the eating
thereof - if all was well with the AO, millions would be in line to join.
They are not!  Does this persuade our fundie friends to even seriously
consider that there is a need to reform the AO in a bid to make it more
attractive?  Their only reaction is to view the bearers of criticism as
"evil."  That's why they are going nowhere fast.

Farewell Night Shadow, farewel Roger - we will miss you!  We miss headaches
too!

"NightShadow" <seals_jay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba9c5b8.77960428@news...
> You know.. I think Charles has the right idea- and I believe I'm going
> to follow suit. I'm sick and fucking tired of people bitching and
> moaning about things they feel they've been denied. I'm tired of
> coming here and watching people defame, attack, criticise, devalue,
> demoralize, compare, deny, repudiate and distort the Baha'i Faith- all
> in the name of "justice" or free expression.
>
> Something Abdul-Baha said in SAQ (I won't quote it word for word
> because I'm too tired to go searching through the book right now). To
> paraphrase, he spelled out the non-existence of evil. Evil is a
> negative. Good is a positive. If you have good, you've got
> *something*. Evil is a negative, therefore something is *taken away.*
> Fear is the absence of courage, hate is the absence of love,
> impatience is the absence of patience- you get the idea. This a
> physical world, a world of substance, ergo, a world of positivity and
> existence, since to "exist" means to have substance. Evil is,
> therefore, non-existant.
>
> Since evil takes away, then that means it *absorbs* goodness but gives
> nothing back. Like the color black simply absorbs light. A black hole
> absorbs *anything*. A vacuum absorbs air. It radiates nothing, puts
> out nothing, produces nothing. People can acknowledge "evil" and
> inspire within themselves fear, hatred, loathing, doubt,
> uncertainty... negative emotions in general, but "evil" hasn't acted
> upon them so much as they have acted upon themselves- they have given
> up something within themselves and reduced their moral/spiritual
> fiber. The have lost a part of themselves, but taken in nothing. To be
> evil is a great loss indeed.
>
> "Evil" people do nothing but destroy and take away, they suck up and
> sap the life out of everything that is good around them. They abhor
> goodness (much in the same way that nature abhors a vacuum). You can
> not apply justice to people who are evil- it is a pointless effort
> because they will only absorb it and grow stronger as you put more
> into them.
>
> Justice is a goodness, it is the "best beloved of God." To throw away
> justice on evil is a waste of time and effort- and of God's good
> grace. Justice is not to attack back or kill or destroy. What happened
> last week was an attrocious thing and it was an incredible example of
> evil. Going after the people who committed or planned those acts, with
> an intent to destroy them, is not justice- it is vengeance.
>
> Justice, in regards to 9/11/01, would be to rebuild. To be *positive*.
> To take responsibility for the things the US has done in other
> countries that are less than noble. As much attention as we,
> Americans, focus on New York right now, we should be moving to rebuild
> the cities we have been bombing and the countries we have been
> attacking for whatever reason- with absolute relentlessness and good
> will. THAT is justice. THAT would be *positive* and productive. THAT
> would be "turning the other cheek."
>
> I have seen many people attacking the Faith, guised in "informing the
> public" or "seeking answers" or whatever else. I'm sick of it. Their
> actions are not just- they are lashing out in an effort to harm a
> religious body that, from their perspective, has harmed them. They
> feel that, since the Baha'i Faith's AO isn't being just, they are
> justified in attacking it- two wrongs do not make a right. It is not
> justice they seek; it is revenge, couched in debate and exposure.
>
> If they were truly just then they would do nothing but sing the
> praises of the Baha'i Faith, noting the good things that are within it
> and drawing as many people to it so that whatever flaws it has can be
> remedied by qualified people. Instead, they scream from the rooftops,
> "No justice can be found in the Baha'i Faith" "The Baha'is are little
> better than terrorists" "The Baha'i AO lies constantly" "The Baha'i
> Faith is rife with censorship" "The Baha'i Faith condones the death of
> so-and-so individual" and much more. I'm fucking sick and tired of it.
> Many of you people have no intention of doing a whit of good within or
> TO the Faith- you would rather spend more time bitching about a
> problem than getting off your ass and bringing people into the Faith
> that can help resolve the problems. You would rather pick and poke and
> prod and split hairs and argue and debate.
>
> If you don't like the Faith so fucking much why don't you get off your
> ass and help it out? Why don't you get involved with your communities
> and effect change? Why don't you stop whining and support it- flaws
> and all. The flaws will never change as long as people are constantly
> told to stay away from it. If you want it to change, then DO something
> about it instead of defacing it.
>
> The Baha'i Faith is a thing of beauty. It was created to unify people
> and raise them up to a higher form of spiritual understanding. It was
> not created over night and it will continue to grow- imagine how much
> faster it could grow and develop in all the right directions with you
> helping it instead of damaging it.
>
> I love the Baha'i Faith ardently. I look to it as a constant source of
> guidance and support. I look to the teachings of the Blessed Beauty
> and weep at the injustices it is enduring at your hands. It does
> nothing, in this world of substance, to harm or molest you while you
> continue to try and destroy it. I see the majority of this newsgroup
> as sick, petulant, arrogant people enjoying nothing more than beating
> up something beautiful that refuses to attack back. Every attack you
> make against the Faith, every time you "expose" another flaw within
> the body of it, I see another bruise, welt and scar creep across the
> face of this inestimable beauty that is the Baha'i Faith... and it
> makes me want to cry at the cruelty of it.
>
> I'm no longer coming here. I came here in the hopes of answering
> questions that promote the Faith and instead I find myself defending
> it or defending myself. I know my limits and mine are reached with
> this newsgroup.
>
> I have no intention of suing Fred- never did. He'll probably ignore it
> anyway- so be it. I had hoped my threat to sue for his clear slander
> would give him some perspective on what he's doing to himself and
> others. I pray that he DOES mature soon- as do I pray that all of you
> do, as well as myself. I am not perfect. I am human. I will make
> mistakes and I will harm people- but I will never do so with malice in
> mind or at heart.
>
> No. Instead, I will simply leave you people alone to whine while you
> attempt to kill the one thing I would gladly die for.
>
> Good-bye.
>
> Allah'u'abha!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:28 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109200703.42b05993@posting.google.com...
Dave
>
> I am sorry that you have to live with terrorism day in and day out.
> But with all due respect your analysis of Fred as anti-AO hero is
> about as accurate as the characterisation of bin laden as a hero of
> Islam.

I have lived with terrorism, have known terrorists, read about them and
tried to understand their psychology and modus operandi.
>
> I do not fear Fred.  The AO does not fear Fred.  I have sent seekers
> to his website and they have always come back to me saying that this
> guy has a big chip on his shoulder and is obviously out to smear the
> Baha'is.  His website is not a collection of evidence.  Have you ever
> seen the film 12 Angry Men?  Fred is like the juror who goes on a
> racist tirade and all of the other jurors turn away.  He no longer is
> taken seriously because of the obvious bias and spite he shows.  That
> is what Fred's site is all about and folks see right through it.
>
> People get pissed at Fred because he claims to be a Baha'i and them
> procedes to insult the Faith in the most venomous way possible.

First mistake - Fred does not insult the Faith.  He is after the AO like the
rest of the critics.  Apart from Miss Maddy, who on this forum attacks the
essence of the BF?  What is criticised and attacked at times is the excesses
of the AO and the way it seeks to pervert the BF.

I will grant you that Fred's continued spamming can get a bit tedious but
his Website is a collection of evidence which stands to the total shame of
the AO.  Have you ever asked yourself why Fred calls himself a Bahai yet
conducts warfare against the AO?  Why does Juan have the site he has?  Why
has he left the AO and written works critical of it?  Why did the AO spy on
Nima?  Why can the AO not include these guys and a lot like them? It's dead
easy to turn around and explain it away as evil on their part.  The hard bit
is figuring out what the AO did that forced these guys out and motivated
them to offer resistance.  That's your problem!

>
> I got angry at hime because the events of September 11th make all
> other acts of terrorism ever perpetrated look like minor events -
> sidebars of history.  I do not wish to diminish the effects of
> terrorism in Northern Ireland but what we have just witnessed makes
> the troubles look tame.

In scope - yes but in nature, no!  There is no difference between the WTC
and the car bomb in Omagh other than the number of casualties.  Both were
undertaken by persons consumed with hatred who had utter and callous
disregard for the lives and safety of others.  The magnitude of the WTC was
certainly greater than any other single act of terrorism yet carried out but
terrorism, whether it leaves one or 6,000 dead, is terrorism.  Last night a
family was terrorised in Northern Ireland - a shotgun was fired at their
house.  This is the third night of terror - the first resulted in a brick
thrown through a window, the second was a pipe bomb and the third has
resulted in one person injured with shotgun pellets in the back of his head
and shoulder.  Today those people know they are "required" to leave their
home and live elsewhere.

Is there any real difference between this type of terrorism and an official
of the AO threatening somebody with CB hood because his e-mail messages are
"covenantly challenging?"

>
> Close to 6000 killed scores more injured and even more traumatized.
> <SNIP>>
> And you and Fred compare all of that to what the Baha'is do?  Come on.
>  Leave your hate for Baha'is aside for a moment and look at what you
> are saying and ask youself if you are thinking any clearer than the
> Islamist school masters in Afghanistan who have taught their students
> that the events of Sept. 11th were a "satanic Jewish conspiracy to
> turn America against Islam and the Arab brotherhood".

And you ask yourself if fundamentalist Bahai attitudes that would dearly
love to emiminate dissent and is willing to adopt any necessary steps so to
do from threatening people with being declared CBs to expelling them, are
any different!  For a person who has been many years in the Bahai
community - CB hood is a death sentence.  To compell or seek to compell his
compliance with AO attitudes is therefore an act of terrorism.  End of
story - Dave!  If an organisation attempts to further its aims by
intimidating its adherents or others, it is in no different in nature to the
organisation that bombed the WTC.  That's the uncomfortable truth!

BTW the AO is no different than any other religion you care to name - they
all work or have worked on intimidation and terror throughout the ages.
That's the joy of the secular society - it has put these nascent embryonic
and mature terrorist organisations in their proper place - well away fron
government.

> You and Fred sound like those mullahs.

And you sound like an ABM or a Counsellor! Pot ...Kettle ... Black!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: What is going on here?
Date: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:01 PM

"Nima Alavi" <s349269@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9p28ju$4er$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> What is wrong with all you people
> Settle down!
> Remeber this?
> "If religion happends to be the cause of Disunity, Seperation or Hatred it
> better it not be there at all"
> WHY???? Because the whole purpose of religion is UNITY!!!! So stop
fighting
> with each other!

Who's fighting?  All I see is a crowd of AO types, incapable of
acknowledging that their beloved AO is far from perfect, and unable to do
anything to rectify that state of affairs.

Besides which isn't JUSTICE the aim and object and if it is, you will have
UNITY pursuing it.  If you ain't got the UNITY it's because you ain't got
the JUSTICE but some folks are prepared to fight for that rather than seek
to suppress it in the name of a so-called unity which is not conformity to
mediocrity.

>
> Nima ALAVI
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: B Questions about the Bahai faith.
Date: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:54 PM

"Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:3BB5C342.2FAEB2@rreini.com...
> At last, someone who is asking legitimate questions about the Baha'i
> Faith.  There haven't been many here lately.

And we all thought you had gone, whereas, in reality, you're a sneaky bugger
who spouts porky pies about leaving but smarms back again when he thinks
there's an impressionable "seeker" about who can be impressed by cant.

The man is certainly posing legitimate questions - of the kind you like.
But what happens if he starts to pose legitimate questions of the kind you
don't like - the sort of things Curious has asked, amongst others?  What
happens if he poses the questions about corruption within the Bahai
Administrative Order that Fred has put, Nima has put, Juan has put?  What
happens if he asks why a law suit was filed in New Mexico after the National
Assembly had ignored the issues therein for nigh on two years?  What happens
if he asks why Alison and Michael were expelled contrary to all established
procedures within civilised societies?  Shall we witness another moonlight
flight with accompanying mumble about how these are not legitimate
questions?

>
> BUSHBADEE wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in the Bahai faith.
> >
> > I have a few questions that I would hope some one of that faith would
answere.
> >
> > I would appreciate if they would email me the answeres to the address
below.
> >
> > 1  Does the Bahai faith accept the Koran?
>
> Yes, we accept that the Qur'an was revealed by God to Muhammad, that it
> is the Word of God.  We accept the Torah and the Gospel too.  We also
> have our own holy writings, which were revealed by our Founders,
> Baha'u'llah and the Bab, as well as the writings of 'Abdul-Baha,
> Baha'u'llah's eldest son and the Center of His Covenant.
>
> >
> > 2 Why do Muslems seem to have such a special hate for those of the Bahai
faith.
>
> Prejudice born of ignorance, IMHO.  The clerics cannot accept the notion
> of a new Prophet or Messenger after Muhammad.  Baha'u'llah taught that
> the Day of Judgment was actually the advent of a new Messenger (or
> Manifestation of God, to use the Baha'i term), and that all alive at
> that time would be tested.
>
> >
> > 3What is the relationship between the Bahai faith and Israel.
> > I understand that the Bahai faith is alive and thriving in Israel.
>
> The Baha'i World Center is located in Israel, that is true.  That is
> because Baha'u'llah, His family and many of His followers were exiled
> there in 1868.  At the time, it was a province of the Ottoman empire.
> So the presence of the Baha'is in the area predates by some 80 years the
> founding of the State of Israel.
>
> Other than the staff at the World Center in Haifa, there is no Baha'i
> community in Israel.  Baha'u'llah ordered the believers not to teach in
> the Holy Land; His injunction is still obeyed today.
>
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > .
> > .
> > I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
> > To answere me address mail to
> >  Bushbadee@aol.com
>
> Posted and e-mailed.
>
> Roger (roger@rreini.com)

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: What is going on here?
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:04 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110010903.20d95c5d@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9p5ucb$gv1pd$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Who's fighting?  All I see is a crowd of AO types, incapable of
> > acknowledging that their beloved AO is far from perfect, and unable to
do
> > anything to rectify that state of affairs.
>
> The AO is far from perfect and we are working to make it better.

Without much success - a lot of talk but no action as events in New Mexico
prove.

>
> > Besides which isn't JUSTICE the aim and object and if it is, you will
have
> > UNITY pursuing it.  If you ain't got the UNITY it's because you ain't
got
> > the JUSTICE but some folks are prepared to fight for that rather than
seek
> > to suppress it in the name of a so-called unity which is not conformity
to
> > mediocrity.
>
> Justice is made manifest in the laws of Baha'u'llah.  One of those
> laws as Nima A. points out is unity and a prohibition against conflict
> and contention.

Unity is not conformity - unity can encompass differences of opinion and
their expression.  Conformity or rather, the attempt to impose it and deny
thereby, freedom of expression, inevitably leads to conflict and contention.

>
> Baha'u'llah gave us a mechanism for conflict resolution - consultation
> combined with obedience to the guidence of our elected bodies.
>
> So we have Baha'u'llah's laws and we have the mechanism in place for
> resolving our conflicts.  I would say that justice therefore exists
> within the Baha'i community.

You haven't resolved the conflict surrounding Alison - your mechanisms
didn't work and she was thrown out.  Now as a non member of the Bahai
community, how can she go back to them for resolution of the conflict.  I
thought all of this consultation was supposed to take place before the
event - I thought if the House or the NSA were going to expel somebody that
they would actually meet and consult with them, in person and not through
lackeys, before throwing them out.

>
> As for not fighting - many of us here have differing opinions.  That
> is ok.  Discussing those opinions is ok.  The insults are not ok.  I
> am in coplete agreement on that point.

The so called insults are a part of the exchange - part of the tradition of
robust debate!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:56 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110010814.162fb9e4@posting.google.com...
> "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:<9p79aa$gp743$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "I'm glad you acknowledge the terrorized state of the U.S.
> > Baha'i community.  Now, does or does not Haifa endorse the
> > state of affairs and support those responsible for it?"
> > K. Paul Johnson, full text at
> > https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Johnson5.htm
>
> Please define terrorism and show us concrete examples of the
> "terrorized state of the U.S. Baha'i community.

So you do not regard "midnight visits" by officialdom threatening impending
nomination as a Covenant Breaker, with consequent social ostracisation by
friends and family, as intimidation or terror.  You do not include spying on
individuals, advising that they be spied on and kept away from "youth" as
similar.  Good to have that clarification!

> For other readers please not that neither Fred nor the source he
> quoted are a part of the Baha'i community in the U.S. and their
> ability to observe it is nearly non-existant.

But they once were and report on what they found during that time.  Current
abilty to observe upon the community may be limited in as much as it is run
as a secret organisation and quasi police state, where informers are
sanctionned in some way.

Dermod.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:29 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110020624.2fd8ca90@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pb8fm$hupga$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...

> Councelors counsel others.  Sometimes they may need to tell someone
> that they are in danger of crossing that line.  Baha'u'llah Himself
> revealed the punishment for breaking the Covenant.
>
> I for one would want to know if I were in danger of crossing that
> line.

And who defines that line in a religion which encorages freedom of
conscience, of thought, of expression - sorry, that was Abdul Baha and your
AO types don't like him at all?  Furthermore fore knowledge of being on the
brink does not equate with the receipt of a letter, out of the blue, telling
one that one is out on one's ear for unspecified offences.  Let us also
recollect recent correspondence from the House of Horrors about "spiritually
corrosive" ex -Bahais, coupled witha bit of kite flying nominating certain
ex-Bahais for the sanctified title of CB hood.  That has, of course, been
forgotten now - certain people issued very clear advice as to what would
happen if the House dared to attempt to cast its evil acts on anybody
numbered among the elect of ex-Bahais.

>
> In fact if people were declared to be Covenant breakers without being
> warned you would be writing that Baha'is terrorize people by NOT
> telling them they are in danger of being declared to be a Covenant
> breaker.

It all depends on whether or not a consultative process has been followed
properly.  Firstly if charges of heresy are to be laid then they must be
laid in writing or in such form together with evidence to allow of the
accused presenting his defence or explanation.  One does not visit in the
dead of night laying allegations of covenant breaking nor does one expel
people without first seeking explanation.  And no crap about appeal
processes either!  When actions precede consultative process it is apparent
that guilt is determined and cannot be undetermined.

> > You do not include spying on individuals, advising that they be spied on
and
> > kept away from "youth" as similar.  Good to have that clarification!
>
> Baha'u'llah instructed LSA's to be watchful.  We humans took it the
> wrong way.  We made a big deal out of it and did not do it the best
> way possible.  But clearly, categorically, and emphatically it is not
> terrorism.

So what is it - this spying, this stalking of individuals who are not Bahais
any more?  The Cold War was fought by spies as is the current US sponsored
operation against bin Laden.  When you spy on people who are no longer
members of your community you infringe their privacy which is an act of
aggression and an act of terror designed to force those people to exercise
themselves in accordance with your wishes.

>
> > > For other readers please not that neither Fred nor the source he
> > > quoted are a part of the Baha'i community in the U.S. and their
> > > ability to observe it is nearly non-existant.
> >
> > But they once were and report on what they found during that time.
Current
> > abilty to observe upon the community may be limited in as much as it is
run
> > as a secret organisation and quasi police state, where informers are
> > sanctionned in some way.
>
> No Dermod - they can't observe the community because they choose to to
> be a part of it.  They have opted out.  They do not socialize with
> Baha'is, they do not attend events with Baha'is.  They have no idea
> what the pulse of the community truly is.  No one is keeping them out
> - they are doing that by themselves.

I have direct and indirect contacts deep within the Bahai community who keep
me well informed as to what is going on.  Indeed I have information about
some events before the community even knows about them.  One does not have
to be a member of an organisation to know a great deal about it -
intelligence gathered from a number of sources, collated and analysed soon
reveals results.  And when some of that intelligence comes from areas close
to the leadership you begin to suss exactly what is going on - even if you
don't reveal all of what you know.

After all the dear lady and Dr. Mork "received" intelligence from Zuhur -
their mistake was to divulge that fact and totally misinterpret what they
got.  Did they really think they were getting sensitive information from a
list which everybody thereon knew was penetrated by their agent(s).  That
the AO or its proponents indulge in such intelligence gathering is a sign
that they regard themselves as being at war - that people on Zuhur indulge
in "terrorist" attacks on them, justifying their "counter terrorist"
operations.  The similarity between this and US reaction to the WTC bombing
is marked.

> Your "evidence" of Baha'i "terrorism" is extremely weak.  You have
> stretched the definition of "terrorism" so far that it has become
> absolutely meaningless.  Your examples that support that weak
> definition are even weaker.

With all due respect, Dave, your experience of terrorism is one horrific
atrocity a fortnight ago.  I have lived with it for many years - I have seen
families intimidated out of their homes with polite and seemingly well
meaning phrases.  Sometimes it is unspoken, just a rap on the door.  If the
family doesn't leave - a stone through the window, a pipe bomb against a
door, shotgun blast through a window etc etc until the message gets across
loud and clear without a word being spoken.  You don't understand the
subtleties of terror for you have never seen them.  Imagine how you would
feel if you got a letter tomorrow morning telling you that your status as a
BIGS has been cancelled on orders from Haifa.  Of course you don't deserve
it - you have broken no rules that you know of; you haven't done anything
wrong!  Nobody has told you that your behaviour has been questionned!  So go
ahead - imagine it!  And now you know or think you know what Alison felt -
now you see Bahai terror at work!

Did you know, Dave, that people actually phoned my wife, in the aftermath of
that letter from the House of Horrors, fearing that I was to be one of those
honoured by the House?  That they felt the need to do that is, whethjer you
like it or not, evidence of fear and terror induced by that letter.  Terror
is subtle - it is a means of forcing compliance and often in a way that is
utterly deniable.  Nobody has claimed responsibility for the WTC bombing
just as here a number of atrocities have not been claimed by one side or the
other.  That deniability is an integral part of the terror process.

> There is no pattern of terrorism in the Baha'i community.  You may
> wish that there were.  It would legitimize your rejection of the
> Faith.  Unfortunately your characterization of Baha'i "terrorists" is
> flat out wrong.

Because you fail to perceive it; because you're not on the receiving end,
doesn't mean that it isn't there.  The AO indulges itself in dirty missions
behind enemy lines.  Its victims perceive that as terrorism - an effort to
subvert them, to force them into line with AO policy.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:52 AM

"Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bbaaa1c$1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Given that terrorism entails random bombings and massacres such as are so
> characteristic of IRA and Orangemen and bloodthirsty fanatics - This claim
> has caused me some confusion. Are you saying that Baha'is are busy
chucking
> bombs and firing on crowds of people, and hijacking planes? If so, where
are
> the arrests and investigations on these hot leads you have?

Timothy,

You're making the mistake of only seeing terrorism in its most violent
manifestation.  For the terrorist the real objective is in the knock on
effects of the outrage.  For example- all of the major bombing outrages here
have been accompanied by series of bomb scares, designed to cause disruption
and fear.  Another tactic is the random phone call to a store or factory -
the person who answers the phone is told that the caller represents a major
paramilitary operation and is "advising" that it is going to kill all of the
Catholics/Protestants who are employed by that store or factory.  Some
warped people take vicarious delight in such tactics and justify them in the
name of the "cause" to which they are affiliated.  Can you imagine the
effect such a call has on the recipient - the fear that is generated?

Outrages generate fear - threats of further outrages generate even more
fear.  A number of telephone calls can close a city down for a day
especially in the wake of  a major outrage; attacks on the minority
community, whence sprang the terrorists, increase, driving that community
into the hands of the terrorists for "protection."

Compare that to the Bahai community - regular CB/liberal (to the average
BIGS there is no significant difference - both generate fear and loathing)
contacts being reported generates fear, expulsions justify that fear,
driving the community to "attack" those who threaten it.  To somebody like
me that has lived in a society dominated (at times) by terrorists, the
situation within the Bahai community is so similar that I fail to understand
why the BIGS cannot see it and rise up against it, for in their hands,
ultimately is the solution.  It's a situation that is slowly destroying the
Bahai community both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world.  Because
the peoples of the world generally prefer moderation, one liberal/dissident
Bahai counter-terrorist can do a lot of damage.

The solution is apparent but it is one rejected by the powers that be.  They
think that they can win their war by "military means" - that they can drive
out and/or subdue the voices of opposition.  I can assure them that this is
not the case.  These types of conflict can only be stopped and resolved by
negotiation and compromise.  As there is no sign of this within the AO
(typical terrorists are extremely dedicated to the "Cause" and brook no
compromise) the conflict goes on and on and will go on and on.

This is one thing that interests me about the AO and amuses me immensely.
An integral part of the most progressive religion in the world which
preaches consultation as a means of practising conflict resolution, asserts
its "authority" to such an extent that it refuses to negotiate with those it
perceives as enemies.  Yet throughout the world the only progress that is
being made in conflict resolution is when the parties are dragged to the
table and persuaded or forced to negotiate an end to their differences.  The
House of Horrors rejects all such process preferring to attempt terror
tactics to keep the community in line.  That succeeds up to a point - the
point where recruitment staggers and slows then goes into negative growth,
the point where the sinews of war (i.e. finance) starts to dry up, the point
where its apologists begin to get shell shocked and waver in its defence as
their inherent contradictions emerge.

The Internet gave a voice to many oppressed BIGS - some paid the price for
their views by being expelled or otherwise made subject to terror tactics.
But as is always the case in conflict when the reasonable (those who are
most open to compromise and negotiation) are terrorised, they become
marginalised and cast out in favour of the warrior class, whose sole aim is
destruction.  They will not destroy the BF but they will wreak immense
damage to the extent that it will never achieve its mission objective
because it does not deserve to.  Not for nothing were the BIGS warned that
the real enemies are those within for they are the best trained and armed -
he who understands best not his own cause but that of his enemy is best
placed to secure victory.

Consider the cost of this conflict, which, like most, is not at all
necessary were the principles of toleration to be practised.  The
progressive is always derided - as a result no progressive will ever mouth
his opinions without being aware that he is in for a rough ride.  He knows
and accepts that - as a result he is a tough foe not given to easy
surrender.  Oppose him and he will fight back with ten times the force of
his opponent for he is truly dedicated to what he believes in.  The AO can't
win this one yet, perversely, it can't lose it either so what is at stake is
the amount of damage that the conflict will cause and the undoubted fact
that the AO is so perverse that it will not seek to resolve matters other
than through violence.  Or, to put it another way - you saw the damage a few
terrorists wrought in N.Y. and Washington - now equate that to the damage
done day and daily to the BF by a mere handful of posters to the Internet
who are merely telling the truth and seeking tolerance rather than bigotry.

Terrorism never wins, the extremists are buried by history for the meek do
inherit the earth.  In future decades Bahais will look back at this conflict
and wonder why it was ever fought, for the principles espoused by the
liberals will win through, as they always do and will be enshrined.  The
more perspicacious will damn the current AO for allowing and indulging in a
conflict that could have been but was not resolved until a time when massive
damage had been done from which the BF has not recovered.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: B Questions about the Bahai faith.
Date: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:26 AM

"Matt Menge" <mspmenge@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.0109301736.198508c3@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9p5u0k$g749f$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Roger Reini" <roger@rreini.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BB5C342.2FAEB2@rreini.com...
> > > At last, someone who is asking legitimate questions about the Baha'i
> > > Faith.  There haven't been many here lately.
> >
> > And we all thought you had gone, whereas, in reality, you're a sneaky
bugger
> > who spouts porky pies about leaving but smarms back again when he thinks
> > there's an impressionable "seeker" about who can be impressed by cant.
> >
>
> So he's indecisive.  What's your problem with Roger anyways?

He's a pompous asshole?

>
> > The man is certainly posing legitimate questions - of the kind you like.
> > But what happens if he starts to pose legitimate questions of the kind
you
> > don't like - the sort of things Curious has asked, amongst others?  What
> > happens if he poses the questions about corruption within the Bahai
> > Administrative Order that Fred has put, Nima has put, Juan has put?
What
> > happens if he asks why a law suit was filed in New Mexico after the
National
> > Assembly had ignored the issues therein for nigh on two years?  What
happens
> > if he asks why Alison and Michael were expelled contrary to all
established
> > procedures within civilised societies?  Shall we witness another
moonlight
> > flight with accompanying mumble about how these are not legitimate
> > questions?
>
> Well for one thing this shouldn't effect Bushbadee right away because
> people like Nima, Juan, Allison and Michael were all prominent and
> influential people within the Faith.  What are you trying to do, scare
> him off?

I'm not responsible for other people's decisions.  There is however a
proclivity on the part of BIGS, when a "seeker" is observed on the Internet,
to divert said seeker from the open forums into "safer" ones, where he can
be removed from the arguments of the evil ones who oppose the blessed AO.  I
just like eople to be offered the option of seeing this tactic, that if they
wish to investigate the BF, they can the chance to see the warts as well.
That's why the open fora are invaluable - an opportunity to avoid
brainwashing or love bombing.

>
> Second, these issues have never been ignored. On the contrary they
> have been debated to death.  As for myself, I realize that our
> administration is not perfect, but I would hardly call it corrupt.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.

I have a sneaking feeling that Bushbadee is less interested inthe AO
wrangling that in the fact that the BF accepts the Quran in its entirety.
Might there be an undercurrent that they could set aside their own Writings
in favour of aspects of the Quran just as some fundamentalist Christians
disregard the New Testament in favour of the "blood and guts" of the Old.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:58 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110030746.c915de1@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pen5e$ibu17$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>
> > Compare that to the Bahai community - regular CB/liberal (to the average
> > BIGS there is no significant difference -
>
> Bull.  That is flat out wrong.  Good to see you have picked up some of
> the skills of terrorism.  Demonize the opposition it makes your
> arguemnt more convincing.

No it is not!  That it is pointed out that Alison is NOT a CB is indicative
of the attitude that that's the way it is - if they're not official CBs they
ought to be.  Geez, Dave, I've been called one myself!

BTW I don't demonise anybody - I call things as I see them!

>
> > It's a situation that is slowly destroying the
> > Bahai community both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world.
>
> Bull.  Show me clearly that the few events (and few they are) add up
> to a campaign of terror.  Heck most of the Baha'is don't even know
> about it.  How can you terrorize a population if they never even hear
> about it?

I did not state that the entire Bahai community is terrorised - fact is,
that individuals who step outside certain boundaries, as defined by the AO,
mark well, will be subject to terror tactics to induce their falling into
line OR leaving the community.  Many Bahais do know about and determine to
ignore it - like most folks they like their comfortable existence untroubled
by controversey which might dent their illusions.  But the general overal
morbidity of the Community in terms of numbers indicates that all is not
well.  I don't attribute this to the terror tactics but to the overwhelming
introspection caused by the need to protect the Faith and that need is often
met by terror tactics when there is a clear and present danger to the
interests of the AO.

You don't need to terrorise a community - you only take action against those
who are perceived as a danger and then isolate them from the community by
demonising them, as in the denunciation of Dialogue and A Modest Proposal.
The little lambs follow suit - but, if any step out of line, they get their
asses kicked.

>
> > The solution is apparent but it is one rejected by the powers that be.
They
> > think that they can win their war by "military means"
>
> Bull.  The AO listens when what is being said actually fits within the
> Covenant.

Yup! - THEIR definition of the Covenant after set aside of Abdul Baha's
statements on freedom of speech etc.

>
> > - that they can drive
> > out and/or subdue the voices of opposition.  I can assure them that this
is
> > not the case.  These types of conflict can only be stopped and resolved
by
> > negotiation and compromise.  As there is no sign of this within the AO
> > (typical terrorists are extremely dedicated to the "Cause" and brook no
> > compromise) the conflict goes on and on and will go on and on.
>
> How can anyone compromise the Word of God?  You can't.

We're not talking about the Word of God - we're talking about the systemic
corruption of religion to suit the power lust of its leaders, as has been,
is and always will be the way with certain religious leaders.  The Quran
doesn't allow of suicide missions according to many interpretations but some
believe that they lead to Paradise.  You, like I, call it corruption of the
Scriptures.  But they don't!  So why should Bahaism be exempt from
corruption, especially given that there is no authoritative interpreter
anymore.  What would a living
Guardian say about the impasse between the liberals who advocate free
unfettered speech and the AO types who want to limit it?

<SNIP>

> > The Internet gave a voice to many oppressed BIGS
>
> Many = 4 maybe 5?  Out of 7 million.  Oh that's right - you need to
> attack that number to make your "side" look bigger than it is.

Let's start - the Walbridges, Juan, Steve Scholl, Nima, Karen etc etc - all
driven out.  How many more are there who just quietly disappeared?  I know
quite a number of BIGS who have just disappeared here - the local news rag
notes that the community is less than 300, exactly what it was 20 years ago
but the membership serial numbers have gone from 9010 to nearly 17,000.
That is of
course the UK total - but the community there is what it was 20 years ago -
under 6,000.  Either way you look at it, 6000 Bahais have disappeared over
those years and that's not including those who are on the rolls and
shouldn't be because they have disappeared but not told anybody!

>
> >  - some paid the price for
> > their views by being expelled or otherwise made subject to terror
tactics.
>
> Again some = 2 or 3?

Two is two too many! One is one too many!

> > But as is always the case in conflict when the reasonable (those who are
> > most open to compromise and negotiation) are terrorised, they become
> > marginalised and cast out in favour of the warrior class, whose sole aim
is
> > destruction.
>
> Wrong.  Some folks who came into conflict with the AO and resolved
> their differences are some very well respected Baha'is.

I'm referring to those who have NOT resolved the dispute.

> You know Dermod you are really good at exaggeration.  There is not
> terrorism in the Baha'i Faith.  There are laws and punishment for
> breaking laws - Baha'u'llah gave us that.

Is there a law against discussion via E-mail in the Aqdas?  So what "laws"
did they break?  Why were the Dialogue editors castigated for something they
didn't publish, that was still under review?  Was it perhaps because they
were seen as nasty bastards who threatened the cushy jobs held by certain
people in the AO?

>Your notion of the Baha'i
> Faith is to be tolerant of those who would tear down Baha'u'llah's
> laws in favor of their own personal view.  You would have an elite
> academic class lead - and dictate what is right and wrong.  Me - I
> want to stick to Baha'u'llah.  That is where this community is going.
> You simply have no idea.  Your out of touch.

I don't give two fiddlers' farts who leads the BF - personally I'm done with
it as I am with any and all organised religion.  What I care about is
justice and what I hate is the hypocrisy that rides roughshod over sensitive
souls in the name of a God most of these buggers couldn't recognise if they
met Him in person.  Your BF which has a powerful, beautiful and attractive
philosophy has been ruined by the megalomaniacs and bigots who run it!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:34 PM

"Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bbbd5cd@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0853486.0110030746.c915de1@posting.google.com...
>
>
> [SNIP a great rebuttal]
>
>
> >
> > You know Dermod you are really good at exaggeration.  There is not
> > terrorism in the Baha'i Faith.  There are laws and punishment for
> > breaking laws - Baha'u'llah gave us that.  Your notion of the Baha'i
> > Faith is to be tolerant of those who would tear down Baha'u'llah's
> > laws in favor of their own personal view.  You would have an elite
> > academic class lead - and dictate what is right and wrong.  Me - I
> > want to stick to Baha'u'llah.  That is where this community is going.
> > You simply have no idea.  Your out of touch.
>
> Let's start with "elite class of academics". No such animal, Dave.
Academics
> live at the bottom of the food chain. Always have, always will. Who would
> listen to the voice of reason when idle fancies and vain imaginings
packaged
> in glossy magazines delivered by the most charismatic sales people money
can
> buy, are so much more attractive?
>
> Now, as to the "Internal Resistance"
> Academic??????????????????????
>
> I agree with all your non-personal comments Dave,
> but these jokers "academic"? Give us a break! I know we are supposed to be
> kind to people, but I think that perhaps you go too far calling them,
> "academic".   :^)
>
> Most of them would not last two seconds if they carried on like this in a
> genuine academic society - they would be expelled, permanently. Who wants
to
> be plagued by members who have a problem with the collective choice of the
> society as a whole?
>
> Academics are not quite so tolerant as Baha'is.

I have no doubt this particular epistle shall cause great peals of merriment
to erupt from Professor Walbridge, Professor Cole, Dr. Walbridge, all of
whom hold tenure at respected Universities in posts of some academic
significance, whose works and papers are often cited in Bahai academia of
the respectable and not so respectable kind.

For your information, human progress has always come from people "who have a
problem with the collective choice of the society as a whole".  That holds
true for advances in religious thinking as it does in the arts and sciences.

With a viewpoint like this prevalent in the community, small wonder that the
BF is advancing in a diametrically opposed direction to that which would
lead it to be of any interest or significance to the seething masses!  Would
it therefore be true to note that Bahais "have a problem with the collective
choice of the society as a whole" which is totally indifferent to their
message and that they should quietly go away?

> Anyway, that is just my narrow-minded view of things.

Indeed it is - "narrow", that is!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:18 AM

Hi Ron,

"Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3BBD1586.470602DA@usq.edu.au...
> Dermod Ryder wrote: some things.
>
> Sorry Dermod, much as I usually applaud your principled comments, I
> cannot possibly agree with any comparisons whatsoever between the Baha'i
> administration and the terrorists. There is a universe of difference
> between those who try to frighten someone with a threat of being
> shunned, and those who murder 6,000 innocents. Conflation of terms,
> levelling of differences, loss of meaning of words, is a primary part of
> the doublespeak that is increasingly making it impossible to get honest
> information across to people nowadays.

The motivation is the same, the methodology is the same, the aims and
objectives are as one - an endeavour to frighten, intimidate or terrorise a
person into complying with an objective.  I do not and never have equated
the scale or magnitude.  As they say - murder is murder is murder and
Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper are murderers same as Hitler or Stalin.
Certainly the former never murdered as many as the latter but does that
merit removal of the title of "murderer?"  I somehow don't think so!  And
Manson was a terrorist, even though that went largely unrecognised at the
time - he "ordered" the murders to incite the war between Whites and Blacks
which he had seen prophesied in the Bible and the songs of the Beatles.
After the Blacks had destroyed the Whites, being inferior types, they would
mill around leaderless until Charlie emerged from his sanctuary in the
desert, to rise up and lead them.  Classic scenario, Ron, use or threat of
violence to terrorise/intimidate towards achieving an objective.

As one innured to the results of terrorism after a lifetime's exposure,  I
do confess, nonetheless, to having been shocked at what happened at the WTC
and Pentagon but I was shocked and horrified by the scale, magnitude and the
loss of innocent life rather than anything else.  The generation of mass
fear and terror in a community is the stock in trade of the terrorist.  It
is his objective - all other considerations are secondary.  And the task of
the terrorist task master is to motivate followers to perpetrate acts of
violence which the follower would, probably, not ordinarily do. It is the
job of the task-master to cause the follower to suspend any critical faculty
and follow blindly and implicitly any direction or order given.  Absolute
and unquestionning obedience to those in authority within the terrorist
organisation is required.  Once that is established then the "volunteer" in
the name of the cause, will undertake any action that he is ordered to
accept WILL advance that cause. The terrorist is as committed to his cause
as any true believer in righteous ways.

Ron, I know and have known terrorists - I have spent time discussing what
they do and have done.  There are factors that have come from those
discussions that help throw light on those who flew those planes on 11
September and those who motivated/ordered them to do that.  *John* was a
fairly typical youth, not terribly well educated or especially intelligent.
He left school and was on the "dole" soon falling into acquaintanceship with
a paramilitary organisation.  His religion and his way of life were being
threatened by evil forces and it was necessary to oppose them, to defend his
homeland and hearth.  So he was willingly recruited into membership, to do
his duty by the cause and swore the oath of allegiance.  When they told him
that a neighbour was a "traitor" to the cause he went, as instructed, and
broke his neighbour's legs with a baseball bat.  And when the "cause" needed
money he organised the "voluntary" collection of it from the community on a
weekly basis and he stole it from those unwilling to contribute voluntarily.
He did all of this without question for the "cause" - he went to jail for
it.  And there he underwent a "conversion".  He met the "enemy" - people
from the other side who had done the same things he had but for a different
cause.  And it slowly dawned that he had been used and abused, that he had
never endeavoured to think things out for himself but had blindly accepted
the gospel of hatred and done deeds for it that he has regretted ever since.

Now these same factors, although not to the same scale or magnitude, are
apparent in events orchestrated by the AO over years past - factors I have
previously alluded to in both private and slightly more public posts to the
Internet.  In June, for example I remarked in the midst of the Greatest Row
surrounding Dr Mork's espionage on Zuhur that Nima was engaged in
"counter-terrorism."  Now whilst there was an element of roguery in that,
nonetheless, the word was carefully chosen in that I have long recognised
the terrorist-type tactics employed by the AO.

Why of all the rebels in the world were Alison and Michael selected for the
treatment they got?  Could it be that they were seen as soft targets who
would yield to the threats and recant their sins to the greater glory of the
AO and a crushing blow to the liberals with the subversion of two stalwarts?
Is this not intimidation in pursuit of an objective and is it not thereby
terrorism?  Perhaps we didn't use the word "Terrorism" much before - but
then before 11 September Americans had not ever experienced terrorism up
close and personal in the way that we had - an experience, BTW, that I would
wish on nobody, not even my greatest enemy.  But let's not smack Fred down
because he says the unpalatable truth.  The AO utilises terrorist tactics in
the purest sense of the word and, as I have noted many times before, would
not hesitate to employ harsher methods, could it get away with it.

Perhaps you should recollect that in June word was on the street that
certain dissident elements were to be designated CBs.  I had dealings
off-list with those who felt that they might be targeted and I can tell you
that there was a degree of fear and apprehension - at first.  It was made
very clear by a series of posts on this group that if even one CB was
declared, it would be seen as the declaration of all as CBs and that severe
retribution would follow.  I have no doubt that this rumour was put on the
street to gauge the likely reaction where the CBs to be declared.  That this
was an intelligent tactic in light of the utter hames made with Alison and
Michael's expulsions, is IMO, indisputable.  That it indicates the dawning
of a degree of rationality at Haifa is also indisputable.  But it also
indicates a hankering for and a notion that opposition can be quelled by the
use of violent tactics, despite the failure thereof to date.  Strange
behaviour for a religion that preaches "consultation" that it chooses not to
"consult" but to "confront."  Needless to say, Ron, that's a classic mark of
terrorism unless/until somebody manages to pound into their heads the
reality that their tactics do not and will not advance their cause one iota.
IRA terror in Ireland has retarded the cause of unification of the island
and the acceptance of that by the Protestant people, a fuller generation if
not longer - it has achieved the exact opposite of what it was aimed at.
Terror is ultimately counter productive!

> Apart from being plain wrong, any hint of a similarity between the level
> of evil of the Baha'i rulers and that of the terrorists merely inflames
> opinions and makes the building of bridges even more difficult.

As for the building of bridges - are you not being a trifle optimistic?  For
any process of reconciliation to be embarked upon, BOTH sides have to be
willing to engage.  Underneath all of the bombast there is a willingness on
the part of the liberals to engage such a process, to sit down without
pre-conditions and consult upon grievances and their solution.  I detect no
such willingness on the part of the AO - it has not yet passed the stage of
"enemies" and "internal opposition", albeit that most of the opposition is
now external, totally radicalised and absolutely outside its control.  The
status of "Unenrolled Bahai" has emerged, acquired a following and the
respectability that accompanies that, has constructed a de facto, if not de
jure, community and is a tribute to the power of AO intransigence.  In
demonising, expelling and casting forth of the internal enemy it created an
external "enemy" subject to no power of influence, control or restraint  I
fear therefore that the "cycle of violence" continues uninterrupted and
unabated.  The AO can end it at any time - by indicating a willingness to
consult, something that would be in accord with its highest ideals.  Were it
to make the appropriate gesture I have little doubt it would be reciprocated
in full measure.  But until that happens ...

I suspect that the time for that is short.  What has been confined (very
largely) to the Internet to date can spread and escalate.  Conflict has to
be nipped in the bud - if not, it gets worse as both sides manoeuvre for the
advantage of the high ground for the inevitable peace congress when,
eventually, one wins or both become too exhausted to continue.

I would not equate the degree of the level of evil of the AO and the WTC
terrorists.  There is no doubt that the WTC terrorists were and are malign
individuals motivated by hatred.  The AO, OTOH, is activated more by
stupidity than malice.  One cannot but be impressed by the dearth of
warriors of quality and intellectual prowess within and amongst its most
sycophantic supporters.  A scrutiny of the Beliefnet archives will reveal
glaring and, indeed, farcical examples of that.  The action taken against
Alison in particular strikes me as precipitate, ill-thought out and embarked
upon without an exit strategy being envisaged or even thought necessary,
were it to go horribly wrong and backfire, as it undoubtedly has.  The
greatest obstacle to any resolution of this conflict is that the AO has
backed itself into a corner whence it cannot emerge without seeing itself as
being humiliated.

For it to agree to any form of consultation is a climb down and it cannot do
that without fatal damage to its own position.  It is in a cleft stick of
its own making - it initiated the conflict through precipitate action that
has consistently failed to achieve the objective of silencing the
opposition, it did so without thought to a fall back position and now, has
no other option than to persist in the conflict it created.

Furthermore the armoury is empty - it has run out of ideas and weapons.  It
fired the final shot in June last when it threatened imminent CB hood but
the enemy's eyes did not even flicker!  It now desperately needs an exit
strategy to which purpose we might slant our thoughts and discussion.
I think we will have to design a parachute for the AO before any peace
process can begin - something that will cushion its fall from on high.

> Furthermore, you do yourself no service whatsoever by aligning yourself
> with someone whose attacks on the AO are motivated purely by his own
> personal hatred of them. That sort of 'friend', to whom the truth is of
> use only so long as it points one particular direction, will hold your
> hand as he leads you to hell.

Actually Fred has aligned himself with my thinking.  Furthermore the
imputation of motives of hatred to him is questionable.  I detect more the
anger and despair born of utter frustration at the perceived destruction of
something that is most precious to him.  Fred certainly is intemperate at
times and most annoying at others.  Yet there is a blatant sincerity behind
what he does, no matter how exasperating or self defeating it might appear
to be.  I can empathise with Fred - in times past when terrorist outrages
have killed friends of mine, I have been tempted to reach for the gun and
lash out at any and all people who just might be even sympathetic to those
who have committed the foul deed.  And as we know only too well here -
terrorism in one community spawns its counterpart in the other.  Fred is a
product of the AO - if he is a monster, it created the monster!  That is the
tragedy but that is the inevitable product of a system that polarises
opinion by stigmatising and demonising those who do not adhere to a strict
fundamentalist interpretation.

And when you talk of building bridges you have to think of building bridges
to Fred as well.  His is an injured soul as well!

Now it may be that I am well on the road to hell!  So long as it is a place
free from religious fanatics it shall be heaven for me!  And nobody is
holding my hand, nobody is leading me and I care not if anybody is
following!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5  - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:54 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110050613.8bbde9@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9piud5$j4bqq$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > > Juan is a pretty good spin doctor - eh?
> > >
> > > I don't buy it, but that's ok.
> >
> > Do you buy into any of the tales of horror on Fred's site?
>
> What I do not buy into is the rehtorical stance, the misleading
> language, and an intentional use of negative terminology to describe
> the situation.

So forget Fred's editorial and look upon it as an archive of soursce
material, which is the way I approached it.  Editorialising comes after the
facts, not before them.

> His account was skillfuly crafted to leave a reader unfamiliar with
> Baha'i Administration thinking that it is some kind of ultra-competant
> secret police force with nothing but evil intentions.

I personally think that there are those within the AO who feel they have a
duty and a right to spy on whomsoever they please.  In that sense therefore
there is an element of the "Secret Police".  "Competent", however is the
last word I would think of to describe it!

Mine own encounters with the AO (long before I ever heard of Fred or Juan)
left that impression firmly melded in my mind.  These guys haven't a clue
how to deal with conflict and contention, especially when it comes from a
non-Bahai who does not and will not play according to their made up rules.
I am a great believer in "due process."  But do they learn from this?  Not
in triduum of Tuesdays and why should they!  have they not been invested
with Divine Guidance on this?  But have they not forgotten that God helps
those who help themselves - what is in the Writings is principle and
guidance which show the way but must be reinforced with the particularities
of rules and must be uniformly applied by reference to precedent.  Principle
and guidance is not especially good law and good law is useless unless
uniformly applicable to all equally and without favour.  That is why law is
based on legislation and case law - rules and precedent as to how to
interpret them so that what is illegal in one district will be illegal in
all.  Given that clarity the citizen knows exactly where he stands .

> Of all people here Dermod you should understand that there are no
> demons here - on either side.  We are all human, we all make mistakes,
> and we are all in the process of growth.  That is not reflected in
> Juan's words.

Demons- NO!  Fools, pedagogues and hypocrites aplenty though!  People should
learn from mistakes - be sensible enough to fess up and not repeat the
error.  But to learn from mistakes, one has first to realise that they have
been made, to analyse them and draw proper corrective conclusions.  This
critical approach is frowned upon by the AO which, for some strange reason,
views it as "negative" and verboten therefore.  The whole thing about
negativity is that it exists from time to time and is an opportunity for
positivism.  To turn negative into positive is to grow.  My impression of
the AO is that it has not recognised or accepted this principle.  Were it to
do so, to take a long hard critical look at all of the negative areas with a
view to learning and growing, matters would improve.  Trouble is, Dave - it
makes the same mistakes over and over again and keeps getting up the noses
of people who do not admit or acknowledge its omnipotence and are not
prepared to accept the crap!  From the LA study group, through Dialogue,
stopping by A Modest Proposal, the expulsions, the spying on Nima, etc  ad
infinitum, this organisation has acted with the crassest of arrogance which
is born only in immense stupidity. IMO it has never once stopped to consider
the fallout of what it has done.

None opf these people ar Covenant Breakers yet they are banned effectively
from being within the ambit of that Covenant.  None of them wants to change
that Covenant. All they say is that the Covenant is big enough to tolerate a
wide range of opinion - if it isn't, then it is not the means of uniting
mankind. Why can't the Bahais be like the Church of England which includes
High and Low Church, Anglo Catholic to the most evangelical fundamentalist
and where indeed, or so it is rumoured, belief in the existence of God is
actually optional, all united in one Church?  Why does it need this
fundamentalist interpretation which is totally alien to most ordinary decent
folk?

John XXIII exposed the locked mindset of Catholicism to the winds of change
in Vatican II to reflect on and re-interpret traditional doctrine and
thinking in and for changed times.  Fundamentalist Catholicism vanished as a
result - for the first time Catholics approached their Protestant brothers
on an equal footing as fellow but separated Christians.  Almost overnight
barriers disappeared - the Christian values of tolerance and love began to
be emphasised over hell fire and hatred.  An enemy was turned into a friend,
as Abdul Baha once put it, although I paraphrase.  Is it not strange that
"corrupt" Christianity can attain to Bahai ideals whilst Bahais cannot.
They still anathematise their separated brethern of all types and kinds in
the name of a Covenant, whch is built on unity and love.   There are many
kinds of unity but only one conformity - for unity's sake do we not have to
overlook the manifest faults and weaknesses of the wife or She Who thinks
She ought to be Obeyed, rather than insist on conformity to set standards!
Is the Covenant so inflexible that it cannot bend to accommodate in the name
of love and unity?  Which is more important - love and unity or conformity
to an inflexible Covenant?  If we ceased looking for that which divides and
sought instead that which unites, unity can be achieved without the need for
anybody to compromise his beliefs - in other words if the centrality of the
Covenant were to rule, disunity and conflict would disappear.  This can be
achieved if we revert to the old Christian idea of tolerance.

> One thing that I learned long ago - when there is a conflict, the two
> sides are both to blame.  I have yet to read anything from Juan, Fred,
> or anyone on "that side" to fess up to their own mistakes.

When Juan re-declared his belief was he not fessing up to a mistake he feels
he made?  As for Fred - he has been so anathematised and marginalised that
he dare not fess up to anything.  And there is the essential problem.  In
the absence of any form of meaningful dialogue between the contending
parties attitudes harden, mistrust grows, suspicion becomes overwhelming
and hatred develops on both sides.  In such an atmosphere it becomes
impossible to fess up because the perception is that the other side will
seize on and exploit it as evidence of weakness.  It's a vicious circle
which neither side can or will break for that is the ultimate weakness.
There are ways of breaking the circle but they require that both sides are
willing to engage in a resolution of the conflict - sadly the AO isn't,
partly I believe because it cannot see a way to do that which will not
result in a massive loss of face for it!  And here lies the biggest
problem - given the absence of malice, the AO has manoeuvred itself into
this invidious position through its own stupidity and that self same
stupidity militates against its seeing a way out!

I confess that this conflict fascinates me.  Much as I am a staunch
supporter of the liberal cause I am not personally involved and have
developed a degree of  detatchment therefore.  What is most interesting is
that the conflict is centred in the US which is to be the powerhouse of
Bahai development in the world.  Consequently the ultimate resolution will
have profound significance for the BF for the next 2-300 years.

IMO at the moment the liberals have gained the high ground and have
undoubted strategic advantage, not so much from anything they have
themselves done but from the fact that the AO, having set the objective of
silencing them, has signally failed to achieve that objective.  The ball is
now in the liberal court.

In a football analogy the West Coast Offence launched by the AO has failed
to achieve first down against a defence that has held under the pressure.
Now the AO can risk a Fourth Down and long or it can punt.  Trouble is that
the ball is in the AO's own red zone and they lost yardage on the last play
when they tried the CB play, which was the only play that ever worked for
them in the past!  But when you use the same play over and over again,
eventually the other team learns how to counter it.  Coach has a problem for
he hasn't a clue about the offensive capabilities of the other team.  If
they use the Internet play it will cost him a field goal but if they use a
different play it will cost him a touchdown and the two minute warning has
come and gone. The scores are level.  He needs a Timeout but he hasn't got
one left and he can't see a solution.  Can you?

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:26 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110030728.6b063b7d@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pdf63$hot4k$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f0853486.0110020624.2fd8ca90@posting.google.com...
> > > "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9pb8fm$hupga$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
><SNIP>
> > Furthermore fore knowledge of being on the brink does not equate with
the
> > receipt of a letter, out of the blue, telling one that one is out on
one's
> > ear for unspecified offences.
>
> But that would certainly get someone's attention.  Then consultation
> could follow.  A letter such as that may be ill timed and unwise but
> it certainly does not equate to terrorism.

So let's recollect - you kick the heretics out and then offer to consult
with them about the fact that you intend to kick them out!  And this isn't
terrorism!

> > Let us also recollect recent correspondence from the House of Horrors
> > about "spiritually corrosive" ex -Bahais,
>
> Guess what Dermod - they were right.

I agree - persons corrosive to the hypocrisy and corruption of the sinecure
holders at Wilmette and elsewhere together with the nepotism and patronage
of "approved" persons.

>
> > coupled with a bit of kite flying nominating certain ex-Bahais for the
> > sanctified title of CB hood.
>
> No one was mentioned in that letter - neither was the term Covenant
> breaker even mentioned.  So that charge is baseless.
>
> > That has, of course, been forgotten now - certain people issued very
clear
> > advice as to what would happen if the House dared to attempt to cast its
evil
> > acts on anybody numbered among the elect of ex-Bahais.
>
> I have no idea what you are referring to.

Cast your mind and your rodent back to June when Dr. Mork claimed that I and
another member of Zuhur were setting up a new Bahai sect.  In the course of
those threads it emerged that word was on the street that certain
"dissidents" were about to be declared CBs. Now Dave, in Haifa there are
three staffers charged with overseeing TRB - a clear message went forth that
if any CBs were declared it would be regarded as an attack on all and
retribution would follow.  To date no CBs have been declared.  You can draw
your own conclusions from that.

> > > In fact if people were declared to be Covenant breakers without being
> > > warned you would be writing that Baha'is terrorize people by NOT
> > > telling them they are in danger of being declared to be a Covenant
> > > breaker.
> >
> > It all depends on whether or not a consultative process has been
followed
> > properly.  Firstly if charges of heresy are to be laid then they must be
> > laid in writing or in such form together with evidence to allow of the
> > accused presenting his defence or explanation.
>
> As Rod has clearly pointed out - that kind of detailed process has not
> yet been created.  It is not yet a part of the consultative process.
> It should be, and it will be, but right now it is not.

And never will be unless/until the AO is seized by the throat and forced to
implement it.  But strange that a religion which promises an advanced
civilisation has not yet attained this particular developmental stage of the
decayed
civilisation it claims it will replace.

> > One does not visit in the dead of night laying allegations of covenant
> > breaking
>
> Well since that has never happened then why are we talking about it?

I think Juan used that term in relation to his own interrogation.
>
> > nor does one expel people without first seeking explanation.
>
> Alison is the only person who fits that description and you know that
> I feel the NZ NSA dropped the ball on that one.

It didn't!  The House did!  Take it from me!  The NSA has refused to correct
erroneous material it circulated to a number of LSAs in New Zealand as
requested so to do, so, effectively, dismissing an appeal.

<SNIP>
> > When actions precede consultative process it is apparent that guilt is
> > determined and cannot be undetermined.
>
> Nonsense - it shows that there was a breakdown in the process.  It
> shows the need for more formal rules.  It shows that we are human.
> Even those who have broken the Covenant can re-enter the Baha'i Faith.

There is no process as you have admitted!  It's all set to a pre-determined
solution that will not be overturned under any circumstances and the rules
made up as the situation unfolds.

> > > Baha'u'llah instructed LSA's to be watchful.  We humans took it the
> > > wrong way.  We made a big deal out of it and did not do it the best
> > > way possible.  But clearly, categorically, and emphatically it is not
> > > terrorism.
> >
> > So what is it - this spying, this stalking of individuals who are not
Bahais
> > any more?
>
> An overreaction in an attempt to adhere to Baha'i law.  It is human
> error.  Unless those individuals pose a real threat to the community.
> But the person you are thinking about did not.

Whether these individuals pose a threat or not - it's none of the AO's
business to harass any individual.

> > The Cold War was fought by spies as is the current US sponsored
> > operation against bin Laden.  When you spy on people who are no longer
> > members of your community you infringe their privacy which is an act of
> > aggression and an act of terror designed to force those people to
exercise
> > themselves in accordance with your wishes.
>
> So the Police are terrorists for not letting criminals know they are
> investigating them?  Did you know that when you go out in public -
> even just outside your home - you have given up your right to privacy?
>  Anyone can take your picture, follow you around, etc. if it is a part
> of an investigation.

Police have to act within the procedures as laid down by law - due process
which does not exist within the AO. They cannot follow you, tap your phone,
read your mail or make unfounded accusations against you without a warrant.
They cannot, by law, harass you and, if they do, you can get a Court to
order them to desist.  They can only accuse you of breach of specific law
and must then take you to Court - they can't tell the community to avoid you
like a plague.

<SNIP>
> > > No Dermod - they can't observe the community because they choose to to
> > > be a part of it.  They have opted out.  They do not socialize with
> > > Baha'is, they do not attend events with Baha'is.  They have no idea
> > > what the pulse of the community truly is.  No one is keeping them out
> > > - they are doing that by themselves.
> >
> > I have direct and indirect contacts deep within the Bahai community who
keep
> > me well informed as to what is going on.
>
> So you are a terrorist if we use your definition:
>
> "When you spy on people who are no longer members of your community
> you infringe their privacy which is an act of aggression and an act of
> terror designed to force those people to exercise themselves in
> accordance with your wishes."

No Dave, I'm into counter terrorism and have been since long before June
this year when I posted the following: -

29 June 2001
""Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010629014249.10154.00002585@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >Crystal has called for no Baha'i spies on the list.
>
> Sounds like what she really means is no Baha'is. She couldn't have meant
no
> spies or she wouldn't have allowed Nima to stay on.

Spies practice espionage for the AO - they are banned!

Nima practices counter espionage and counter terrorism - it is permitted!!"

> You should change your handle from the grim reaper to 007.  Come on
> Dermod.  Fred claimed that the Baha'i Community is in a state of
> terror.  He is attempting to gague the state of the community with
> which he has no contact.  Sorry but I just don't buy it.  Though your
> claim to be the anti-Baha'i spymaster is quite amusing.

I'm not the "Bahai spymaster" although I know who does hold that post - I'm
also not the Head of Bahai Counter Espionage and, again, I know who is!

> > After all the dear lady and Dr. Mork "received" intelligence from
Zuhur -
> > their mistake was to divulge that fact and totally misinterpret what
they
> > got.  Did they really think they were getting sensitive information from
a
> > list which everybody thereon knew was penetrated by their agent(s).
That
> > the AO or its proponents indulge in such intelligence gathering is a
sign
> > that they regard themselves as being at war - that people on Zuhur
indulge
> > in "terrorist" attacks on them, justifying their "counter terrorist"
> > operations.  The similarity between this and US reaction to the WTC
bombing
> > is marked.
>
> What?  Now you are really starting to sound like Ian Flemming.

He wrote fiction - the dear lady and Dr Mork were in receipt of messages
purloined from Zuhur (a private list).

<SNIP>
> >And now you know or think you know what Alison felt -
> > now you see Bahai terror at work!
>
> I have imagined it.  And with all due respect - I would not go
> ballistic and start raging against the machine, or spamming news
> groups, or filing law suits, or generally throwing a tantrum.  I have
> faith in Baha'u'llah and the tools He gave us for conflict resolution.
>  If I got such a letter I would clarify it ASAP with the AO.

Deborah Buchhorn waited a long time for her letter to be replied to - she
sought clarification and action and didn't even get an acknowledgement.  If
it happens to you how patient would you actually be - given that, per your
own admission, there is no due process to guarantee you a result of any
kind!

> Most of
> what I have seen here and on a few websites out there are
> overreactions.  I would not overreact.  There is NO parallel between
> what happened to Juan, Alison, Nima, Michael, or Fred and terrorism.
> Zero.

So how do you describe the AO action - "reasonable", "justified",
"dignified".  You know if there was one shred of common decency in these
people they wouldn't hoof people out - they would see the hurt and try to
prevent it.  Alison would have had prior warning if these guys had a spark
of humanity about them - they would have seen her, talked to her, eyeballed
her, not chosen the coward's option of a letter out of the blue with no
reason given - damn it, she had to wait months for that and even then it was
first sent to the BIGS.  But if that 's not terrorism, what the hell is it?

> > Did you know, Dave, that people actually phoned my wife, in the
aftermath of
> > that letter from the House of Horrors, fearing that I was to be one of
those
> > honoured by the House?  That they felt the need to do that is, whether
you
> > like it or not, evidence of fear and terror induced by that letter.
Terror
> > is subtle - it is a means of forcing compliance and often in a way that
is
> > utterly deniable.  Nobody has claimed responsibility for the WTC bombing
> > just as here a number of atrocities have not been claimed by one side or
the
> > other.  That deniability is an integral part of the terror process.
>
> Dermod.  That is not terrorism.

So Dr Mork makes a false accusation against me which lines me up for CB
hood, if true.  Now this is of profound indifference to me but it matters to
my wife for if I am declared a CB she has to leave me or bear the same
title.  But once again, this isn't terrorism!  This isn't designed to
intimidate or coerce me into alternative action!  NO! It's just another in a
long line of mistakes - so many of them!

> It does not meet the definition at
> all.  Your belligerence, exaggerated accusations, hostility, and anger
> all fit with the description given in that letter.  The House was spot
> on.  Now, deal with it.

Yeah man! I'm real corrosive!  And guess what - I don't have to deal with
it!  It's not annoying me!

>
> The AO is not the evil systematic terrorist machine that you make it
> out to be.  I just IS NOT.  It is a young organization, short on man
> power and resources, trying to understand just how it should function.

Now that frightens me!  These guys don't know what they're doing and this is
the pattern of a future civilisation for, make no mistake, what they get
away
with now, is precedent for what they'll get away with in the future.

>  Mistakes will be made.  Incidents have happened and will happen
> again.  But that does not mean that the AO is the Gestapo incarnate.

It does until the AO learns to apologise - assuming, of course that all of
these incidents are "mistakes".  But if they are mistakes the AO should not
have to await formal appeals before rectifying them, that is, if their
motives were pure.

> They are not that organized.  They are not that co-ordinated.  The
> principles of the Faith do not allow for them to ever behave like that.

Hasn't stopped them so far!

> Dermod - I am tired of dealing with this subject.  You are "spiritually
> corrosive" because all you do is focus on the negative and magnify it.
>  Are you a bringer of joy and hope or do you hate the light so much
> that you just want to dampen it with comparisons between
> mass-murderers and a group of individuals trying to build a better
> world who made a few mistakes.

I love the light!  But to know what light is you also have to experience
darkness.  If you want to rectify mistakes you have to recognise them
first - that's the negative but necessary first prerequisite.  If you cannot
see that there is a perception that the AO indulges in terror tactics, which
you say it doesn't, then it would be out there rectifying these mistakes -
not waiting for appeals or anything else.  It knows the depth and intensity
of feeling out there - it recognises the damage that is being done by having
this dirty laundry washed in public and it knows how to resolve this
problem.  Fact you have got to face is that the AO doesn't give a damn about
any hurt it dishes out - if it did, it wouldn't do it and the proof of that
is that when faced with the fruits of its mistakes, it persists in them and
refuses to consult on a resolution!  Many efforts have been made to engage
the AO on the present impasse - to get around a table and thrash matters out
with a view to resolving the differences and putting an honourable end to
the conflict.  There were no pre-conditions attached to this - the offer was
made by persons prominent in the liberal camp and has been spurned and
rejected.  And until now no mention has been publicly made of it lest assent
to such talks might have been perceived as a climbdown by either side.

It is high time that it was known that the AO has no interest in settling
this matter - in engaging in any form of discussion.  That is the main
reason that most of this conflict has been in public for there is no other
way.  The AO has no interest whatsoever in CONSULTATION with anybody who
disagrees with it.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 5:49 AM

"Onandagus7" <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011005222659.21551.00001084@mb-ce.news.cs.com...
> >a covenant-breaker is a schismatic Baha'i,
> >just as various Christian heresies are not seen as really "Christian" by
the
> >more orthodox types.  Yet, to an outside observer, any person with Jesus
as
> >the central figure can be broadly thought of as Christian.  Likewise,
anyone
> >with Baha'u'llah as their central figure can be broadly thought of as
> >Baha'i, even if excommunicated from the Faith.  I mean, Dave, they aren't
a
> >completely separate religion -- they are sectarians rejected and shunned
by
> >the majority.
> >
> >Love, Karen
>
> I am not a Baha'i. But didn't Bahaullah say that anyone who lived the
moral
> teachings of the faith was already a Baha'i? Why wouldn't that also apply
to
> people who had been kicked out of the faith for heretical views but lived
the
> ethical standards?
>
> Don Bradley

Actually, I think it was Abdul Baha who said that or something similar, but
it doesn't matter who said it for it's true.  When as in the BF, there
exists an administrative order, which is into "control", such sentiments are
set aside.  It is now a faith system dedicated to "order" within the ranks,
"conformity" to a narrow and often misunderstood interpretation of the
central features, and "unity" so as to exclude any and all who submit not to
the "order" and "conformity".

As the relative success of fundamentalism shows, such an approach has appeal
to a number of people.  I think the broad mass reject it and if that is the
case then the pool from which Bahais hope to draw converts becomes somewhat
circumscribed.  In other words it has sacrificed its universalist appeal and
approach.

As you will note from these newsgroups there does exist a small but
vociferous group of former Bahais (expelled or otherwise compelled to leave)
who do not accept this narrow fundamentalist interpretation of the Faith.

Keep asking those questions, Don.  They are most pertinent.

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: UHJ letter on withdrawals (for Don)
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:43 PM

"Onandagus7" <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011006215400.16563.00002399@mb-fb.news.cs.com...
> Thanks Karen.
>
> Is the UHJ generally more reasonable than many in the Baha'i community
itself?

Only slightly!  It tends to be somewhat polite and apparently reasonable!

Everything flows down from the UHJ - its status as an infallible entity is
akin to the Papacy, only more so.  As the head of the BF and the ultimate
decision maker it has the responsibility for much of what is wrong in the
community.

You also have to understand the subtext - "being left to one's own devices"
is shunning by another name. Those who have been subject to this will affirm
that whereas ordinary Bahais won't.

Another factor to be considered is that much of the current conflict
revolves about the interpretation of the role of the administrative order
and its practices.  Bahais however see it as an attack on the centrality of
the whole Covenant and the entire Faith. This is not the case.  I no longer
accept the Bahai Faith as my personal faith system but I launch no attack on
those who do - my contention is with those who abuse it to inflict pain and
suffering on past and present members.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:14 PM

"Craig Koller" <cwkoller@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cwkoller-56C048.13091806102001@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
> In article <9pnmjg$jbuj6$1@ID-73584.news.dfncis.de>,
>  "John R MacLeod" <jrmacleod@consultant.com> wrote:
>
> > "Craig Koller" <cwkoller@earthlink.net> wrote
> > <snip>
> >
> > >In LA,
> > > our former Auxiliary Board Member for Protection (who recently passed
> > > away) told me that oftentimes it's people with great abilities and
> > > intellect who sometimes let ego get the better of them, who start to
> > > eschew humility and try to wield intellectual power over others.
> > >
> > > That's when problems happen.
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Wouldn't it have been wonderful if, instead of this pointed remark, your
> > friend had said something like:
> > "You know I've noticed that the people who become disaffected are often
> > people with great abilities and intellects.  I think its very important
that
> > we find out why the Faith is failing these people and see if we can
correct
> > the situation."
> >
>
> That's pretty much the spirit of what he said, and how he said it to me,
> I'm simply paraphrasing. Although, as far as the "Faith failing these
> people" I think there's a distinction that has to be drawn between the
> Faith of Baha'u'llah (which we are not to "improve"), and the community
> of Baha'is (which fails as much as human design allows for failure!).

But that's not at all how you presented it.  This kind of self righteous
cant is rife in the Bahai community on this side of the pond, as well.

>
> The New Testament is rife with accounts of those who failed, who
> doubted, who betrayed, who showed arrogance to Jesus to His face.
> History is filled with stories of people who let their ego's get the
> better of them.

You're still at it!  Ever considered the fact that people do what they do
because they BELIEVE it to be right!  Isn't that why you're a Bahai?  If so,
kindly accord the same respect to those who aren't and don't agree with you!

>We rarely show compassion for these people because of
> their status and abilities. I've spoken with several community leaders
> and heard nothing but compassion and hope for those whose behavior at
> one time required administrative action.

Crocodile tears for sure!
>
> The fact remains that sometimes the Baha'i community fails the people,
> true, but just as often these people simply fail. That's the price of
> free will. There's wiggle room to be sure, but sometimes there's little
> more that can be done by the administration IMO...

There's plenty can be done by the AO - start with answering the
correspondence of Deborah Buchhorn, continue with apologies to the authors
of "A Modest Proposal" for getting it all wrong at National Convention,
explain to Alison Marshall why nobody bothered to consult with her to
explain why she was going to be turned out, apologise to Nima Hazini for
running surveillance on his private life after he left the BF and then
writing a scurrilous letter about him, aologise to Fred Glaysher for
removing him from the Rolls WITHOUT telling him that this was being done and
tell me why after being away from the BF for 20 years, I am still referred
to as a Covenant Breaker by people who ought to know better   ....

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 9:33 PM

"Craig Koller" <cwkoller@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cwkoller-43A2B7.11110006102001@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
> In article <9pmnik$iqqq5$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>,
>  "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think it was Abdul Baha who said that or something similar,
but
> > it doesn't matter who said it for it's true.  When as in the BF, there
> > exists an administrative order, which is into "control", such sentiments
are
> > set aside.  It is now a faith system dedicated to "order" within the
ranks,
> > "conformity" to a narrow and often misunderstood interpretation of the
> > central features, and "unity" so as to exclude any and all who submit
not to
> > the "order" and "conformity".
>
> Yikes! You'd think it was the Gestapo sitting there in Chicago, instead
> of an NSA, nine men and women elected by national convention delegates,
> who were in turn elected at district conventions by individual Baha'is.
> There's no campaigning in the process, although admittedly there is a
> small amount of turnover from year to year (usually one or two new
> people come into the NSA each election IIRC).

Now there is no open campaigning which is not to say that there is no
campaigning.  the district conventions are held in October - the National
convention in April.  This leaves an interval of 6 months in which the
incumbent National Assembly and aspiring candidates can, shall we say,
"meet" the community and/or the delegates for campaigning purposes, sorry!,
consultative processes.  Last year the NSA went on a grand tour of the
country in November.  Now if the district conventions were held in
February/March there would be no opportunity for cynical sods like me to
suggest that there is a "campaign trail."

There is little or no turnover in membership of National Assemblies.

And no! It's not the Gestapo sitting there at Wilmette - more like "Dad's
Army!"

> Last year, the national convention was opened up to *all* Baha'is,
> although only convention delegates were allowed to consult with the NSA.
> But if you had a question, comment or concern, all you had to do is ask
> your delegate (or any other delegate) to ask it for you. That's what I
> did. Oh, and you can *always* talk to NSA members (like in the hotel
> lobby), because they're just individual Baha'is after all...

Pressing the flesh or associating with the great unwashed is one of the
least pleasant aspects of being in elective office!

>
> People "kicked out of the Faith" aren't necessarily CB's, that's a very
> specific infraction. Some people have lost their voting rights, which
> precludes them from attending official Baha'i gatherings, but not holy
> days, social gatherings, firesides, deependings, etc.

There's a specific and innovative category that Craig hasn't noted - those
who are "disenrolled", removed from the rolls because they are found not to
be in compliance with the belief requirements for a BIGS.

>
> In all of these cases, even for Covenant Breakers, one need only cease
> in engaging in that behavior that got them "kicked out" and ask to
> regain their voting rights. If they're sincere, they should be
> reinstated. They can still be the most cantankerous contrarians on the
> planet, but if they're not openly, flagrantly breaking Baha'i laws,
> there's no basis for losing voting rights.

The disenrolled may not have been informed as to the exact reasons they were
deemed no longer qualified for membership.

>
> In my 15 years in the Faith, I've seen incredible patience and
> forebearance amongst Baha'i administrators who've had to deal with a
> myriad of ego's and attitudes. I've been through the review process at
> National for a music project I did, and although it was painfully slow,
> I found them fair and open to folks trying to promote the Cause.
>
> Honestly, I'm *glad* I'm not in their shoes. How easy do people think it
> is to protect and promote a religion, wherein the land of its origin
> (Iran), people still live in peril, and some of the behavior we engage
> in here (in the once-thought impenetrable USA) can cause harm there, as
> well as here?

That there has been some persecution of Bahais in Iran is of no relevance to
the spread of the Faith in the US or elsewhere.  Secondly the persecutions
have been motivated by religious hatred and other reasons, including the
close identification of Bahais with the Shah's regime.

>
> >
> > As the relative success of fundamentalism shows, such an approach has
appeal
> > to a number of people.
>
> The biggest influx of Baha'is was during the late 60's and early to mid
> 70's. Are you saying these people were prone to fundamentalism? I
> heartily disagree. If all that mattered were "converts" and raw numbers,
> the Faith could morph itself into whatever the focus groups recommended
> (if it had the lattitude to do so, which by definition of Baha'i Law, it
> doesn't). Besides, such catering to the mores of the time is a trap I
> think we've seen historically in other religions, that has led to
> confusion and division that adversely impacts us to this day.

What I can note in relation to Northern Ireland is that the BF does not
appeal to Catholics - they are severely under-represented therein.
Catholicism tends toward authoritarianism in Ireland - I can well understand
why Catholics would not forsake one authoritarian faith for another.  As for
the US I think fundamentalist religion is much more popular and deeply
rooted there than in Europe.  The US is quite conservative compared to
Europe and as a result, I think it more likely that persons who commit to
religion are much more likely to be conservative/fundamentalist.  In Europe
religion has been largely relegated to a lower division.
>
> > I think the broad mass reject it and if that is the
> > case then the pool from which Bahais hope to draw converts becomes
somewhat
> > circumscribed.  In other words it has sacrificed its universalist appeal
and
> > approach.
>
> Most of the broad mass have never even heard of the Baha'i Faith. I
> originally thought Baha'is were like Unitarians, which except for the
> "unity" and the embracing other religious truth, was pretty off the
> mark. Nobody's forcing anybody to become a Baha'i. IMO there is no more
> comprehensively laid-out set of administrative guidelines on Earth, to
> prevent the kind of infighting and division that effected nearly every
> other religion shortly after the ascension of its Founder.

Rules and regulations never have sufficed to stop disputation or internal
conflict in any organisation.  Disputation and conflict can only be settled
by dialogue and compromise or by people agreeing to differ amicably.

> > As you will note from these newsgroups there does exist a small but
> > vociferous group of former Bahais (expelled or otherwise compelled to
leave)
> > who do not accept this narrow fundamentalist interpretation of the
Faith.
> >
>
> The "independent investigation of truth" calls for all to judge for
> themselves based on a fair and thorough examination of the facts. In LA,
> our former Auxiliary Board Member for Protection (who recently passed
> away) told me that oftentimes it's people with great abilities and
> intellect who sometimes let ego get the better of them, who start to
> eschew humility and try to wield intellectual power over others.

Or if independent investigation leads to a conclusion that is at odds with
the POV of the powers that be in the BF, it is not the product of intellect
or calm dispassionate analysis of all of the factors but malice or ego.
Furthermore the explanation of such conclusions is not to be understood as
explanation or exposition but an attempt to dominate the opinions of others.

This is something that fundamentalists and certain liberals agree on - where
the fundamentalists argue that liberals attempt to impose their views on
others the liberals are positive that the fundamentalists have imposed their
views and will tolerate no dissent.

>
> > Keep asking those questions, Don.  They are most pertinent.
> >
>
> You know, we're so conditioned to look at conflict as the result of two
> opposing forces, one obviously right and the other obviously wrong. It's
> a convenient way to dispatch an argument without taking the time to
> probe the details.

Incorrect!  Conflict arises when persons with differing views cannot
reconcile them, settle them or create a condition in which the disparate
views will be tolerated.  The question of right or wrong does not arise and
is not relevant.  Right (Wrong) is in the eye of the beholder - but a
dispassionate look at conflict will reveal that there is right (and wrong)
on both sides.  To each is given the responsibility of making his own
decisions - the only wrong inherent in that is when somebody tries to
prevent one acquiring pertinent information.  In other words if a decision
is to be informed it has to be based on an evaluation of all of the
information available.  Don is quite obviously quite capable of weighing up
the pros and cons of any situation for himself - all he requires is access
to information, all of the information available.  Whatever decision he
arrives at is right!  It is incumbent on all to accept that even if one is
not in agreement with what he decides.  Toleration of those who differ is
the most necessary human virtue - imposition of one's own views on another
is an abomination, whether through false logic, lies, distorted evidence,
force or the threat thereof.

> We're human and we're messy, that's the way life is. Anger and hate is
> its own punishment sometimes, or the sign that we're holding on to
> something that really needs to be let go of.

And often anger and hate is born of an injustice suffered and must not be
let go - for justice is the best of all human and divine attainments!

>
> That's my take.
>
> --
>  --
> Craig Koller <cwkoller@earthlink.net>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:02 PM

"Craig Koller" <cwkoller@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cwkoller-ECB0CA.03015006102001@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
> In article <20011005222925.21551.00001085@mb-ce.news.cs.com>,
>  onandagus7@cs.com (Onandagus7) wrote:

<SNIP>
> One of the most virulent and destructive Covenant breakers was Mirza
> Yahya, Baha'u'llah's own half brother. Perhaps because he saw himself as
> the true Manifestation of God or simply resented not being the Promised
> One, he sought in every way to destroy Baha'u'llah, even resorting to
> poisoning Him at one time. Yahya was able to draw a tiny band of
> followers from within and without the believers and they too tried to
> destroy the Faith. This caused great physical and spiritual pain to the
> community, exacerbating Baha'u'llah's already tenuous relationship with
> hostile governmental and religious authorities, and ultimately led to
> His final banishment to Akka in Palestine (Yahya and his followers were
> banished to Cypress IIRC).
>
> Yahya not only caused harm to Baha'u'llah, to himself and to the loyal
> Baha'i community, he condemned the souls of those who chose to follow
> him. Consider for a moment how horrific an act that truly is, to
> spiritually pull someone away from the light of God...

FYI as has been pointed out before on this group Mirza Yahya was NOT a
Covenant Breaker.  He never did sign up to the Faith developed by his
half-brother and therefore could not have broken a covenant he never
subscribed to.  Yahya was the appointed nominee/successor of the Bab - might
it be therefore that the animosity between him and Baha'u'llah arose from
Yahya's position as the head of the Babis and a not unreasonable conclusion
on his part that Baha'u'llah was breaking the Covenant of the Bab.

Bahais may argue that Baha'u'llah abrogated the Babi Faith through his claim
to be "he whom God shall make manifest" and that Yahya had thereby an
unqualified need to submit to him.  The only problem with this approach is
that Baha'u'llah was only one of many who laid claim to this station
(including Nabil).  In hindsight we can see that his claim was the only one
that attracted any significant support but that fact alone, unclear at the
time, was not deemed significant enough to cause any shift in Yahya's
stance.

In the early history of the BF - Covenant Breaking was largely due to family
feuding possibly over control of the money flowing from believers to Haifa
and at the disposal of the leaders.  In later years it has arisen largely in
relation to control of the administrative organs.  Little of it has had to
do with matters of faith or theology as Christians would understand that.
In the BF however the administrative function is a part of the theology and
therefore any significant challenge to the dominant interpretation merits
the award of Covenant Breaker status.

The historical writings of Shoghi Effendi are sectional and sectarian - they
are by no means an objective history of the development of the BF but
written with a pre-conceived agenda in mind - the promulgation and
dissemination of  officially approved history which glosses over or omits
anything deemed embarassing.  It is also bad history in that the author has
not annotated his work with sources.  It is therefore not  safe to draw
definitive conclusions from his work.  In addition histories which draw only
or predominantly from his work as source material are likewise unsafe.

Shunning of anybody on matters related to faith is an unmitigated
abomination for which there can be no excuse.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:32 PM

"Onandagus7" <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011006230354.16563.00002411@mb-fb.news.cs.com...
<SNIP>>
> I hope, however, that no one takes offense at my questions, and even
implied
> criticisms. I only recently became aware of what the Baha'i faith is
about, and
> I was just blown away. The vision of the faith is expansive, sweeping, and
> profound! But it is that very vision that has given me very idealistic
> expectations of the Baha'i community. I wondered if the community would
really
> live up to its founding vision, as religions almost never do. So, I am, in
my
> investigation of the faith community, holding it to what I see as the
highest
> standards, and seeing how it stacks up.

You're a man after me own heart!

There is one important facet of Bahaism that you must take account of.  The
principle of independent investigation of truth was one of the most
attractive aspects of the BF to me - having come from a relatively
authoritarian Catholic background, which I had long discarded in favour of
an embryonic form of my current faith system, God fearing Atheism, I felt I
had contacted a liberal non-doctrinaire and inclusive system that would both
allow of and encourage worthwhile disputation of matters of faith.

Prior to joining, this POV was encouraged by the Bahais I met.  After
joining, the picture altered somewhat.  I was informed that my independent
investigation of truth was now at an end as I had discovered the truth and
need search no more.  Any further questions I had would now be answered for
me by the powers that be!  That was twenty years ago.

I got out of there so fast the shirt tail didn't touch the nether regions!
If you're curious as to why I am here I suggest you go to
https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/ .  Alison was expelled from the BF
in a manner contrary to natural justice.  That's what blew my mind and being
"Fightin' Irish" it seemed the right thing to get involved!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Disowning and Shunning?
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:39 AM

"Matt Menge" <mspmenge@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.0110092019.51955a0a@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pvmar$kvoa0$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> >Could you define the difference between "shunning" and "leaving
> someone to
> >their own device"?
>
> Well in my mind leaving someone to their own devices would mean to
> leave someone alone, but not to resist if they tried to force you into
> a conversation.

And shunning is leaving somebody alone but protecting their civil rights.

> > Is there any substantive difference?
>
> Yes and there is also a difference of degree.  Most importantly there
> is no mandate to avoid someone left to their own devices, it is simply
> a warning that they are a bad influence.  For example if my brother
> was a criminal I might not treat him the same way, but I wouldn't
> refuse to talk to him.

You have now defined the difference but it is not substantive - within the
BF "shunning" is mandatory whereas "leaving to own devices is advisory."
Theoretically there is a difference - practically there isn't, for in the
sub-text BIGS "know" what they are "expected" to do in both cases.

>
> >Seems to me that if the NSA advises the BIGS to leave Nima to his own
> >devices and then hammers his folks for not doing that, there is no
> >substantive difference.
> >It's all spin!
>
> That's what I find irritating about Nima's approach.  I really don't
> fully trust Nima, but all we have to go on is his own personal
> testimonial.
>
>   And then when I question it, Nima chides me for being ignorant, all
> the while not giving me any new information.  Maybe I will have to
> contact the Aussie NSA after all.

The Aussie NSA will reply that it is a matter of personal status and that it
cannot discuss this with you as such discussion would be backbiting.  Fact
is that on two occasions the Aussie NSA has publicly issued letters
defamatory to Nima - once to the LSA where his folks reside and once to the
"Australian Bahai" a news rag of some sort, allegedly.  I understand that
this documentation is up on the Internet - I clearly recollect seeing it.

In respect of the alleged physical assault and other proceedings, there is
no evidence to the contrary.  Furthermore I am more inclined to believe what
Nima has stated is true on the basis that this type of AO behaviour is
consistent with AO behaviour, observed by me directly, observed by friends
of mine and reported elsewhere on the Internet, ad nauseam, by other
parties.

It is conventional to regard any account as truthful in the absence of
evidence to the contrary - in other words we do not doubt the veracity of
those who post here when they are reporting facts and events.  Perhaps if
you adopted a different approach you might find out more!

> Have a good evening,

It's morning here which just shows how much some people are out of line with
the time(s) we live in - cheap pun!

Dermod

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:07 AM

"Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bc1657a@news.iprimus.com.au...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9piuie$j6ilc$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3bbaa99d@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > And pray explain how placing opinions on a relatively small Internet
group
> > is "imposing your personal beliefs upon others or missrepresenting your
> own
> > beliefs as the collective beliefs of the Baha'i Faith or for that
matter,
> > any other religion."
>
> Stick a "Believe or else" clause in your paper, or personally abuse
someone
> (as opposed to labelling an action or statement) for not agreeing with you
> is a good start. Saying, "This is the Baha'i viewpoint" instead of, "This
is
> my viewpoint" is another great way to offend friends and intimidate
people.

Can you give us specific instances where this has been done - where
individual liberals have put such statements in papers or messages?

"Ad hominem" is the weapon of choice of AO apologists.

The statement "This is the Baha'i viewpoint" is usually found or implied in
official statements from the official organs.  Is this why they offend
friends and intimidate people?

> Apart from that;
>
> It isn't.
> I do it.
> I put my name to it.
> "They" know where I live.
> I do not get harassed for it.
> I still vote.
> End of story.

Splendid!

>
> --
> Timothy Casey
> South Australia
> worloq@iprimus.com.au
>
> Formerly:
> casey@smart.net.au
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:35 PM

"Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bc16579@news.iprimus.com.au...
> In reply to your post as a whole, I have a question.
>
> Is it possible to have universal liberty and rights when the liberty and
> rights of one may be exercised at the expense of the liberty and rights of
> many?

Ever heard of the dictum that one is free to exercise any and all rights
that do not infringe upon the rights of others?  That, BTW, is pre-Bahai!

> PS
> Before we resume our "invective", I think you should know that the "House
of
> Horrors", as
> you call it, is on your side here:
>
>     'The House of Justice recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are
> Baha'is who, imbued by what they conceive to be loyalty to Baha'u'llah,
> cling to blind acceptance of what they understand to be a statement of the
> Sacred Text. This shortcoming demonstrates an equally serious failure to
> grasp the profundity of the Baha'i principle of the harmony of faith and
> reason. The danger of such an attitude is that it exalts personal
> understanding of some part of the Revelation over the whole, leads to
> illogical and internally inconsistent applications of the Sacred Text, and
> provides fuel to those who would mistakenly characterize loyalty to the
> Covenant as "fundamentalism".' Letter to Susan Maneck dated (08/02/2001)

This refers to "personal understanding" and the exercise of it such as to
incur the tag of fundamentalism which is of course a false descriptor of
Bahaism.  However that fundamentalist interpretations approved or made by
the institutions do not attract or merit such a descriptor, is a principle
not addressed by the above.  And since the actions by the AO, which attract
criticism, are motivated by a fundamentalist interpretation, the above
passages of no support to me or others who proffer the criticisms.

> By the way, isn't, "House of Horrors" invective?

Not, IMO, when it is a title merited by actions!

> Of which you say,
>
> The weakness
> > of any argument is directly proportionate to the amount of invective
used
> to
> > support it, in the absence of any evidence.
>
> Is invective really the tool of the meek? - of whom you say:

Invariably - good invective and satire have never been produced by the
establishment as a weapon with which to demoralise opposition.

> "Terrorism never wins, the extremists are buried by history for the meek
do
> inherit the earth."
>
> ????
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9pj7hc$j7139$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3bbbf4b8@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > > "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9pen5e$ibu17$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Timothy Casey" <worloq@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:3bbaaa1c$1@news.iprimus.com.au...

> >
> > So you've done the psychological profile then.  Looking for a weakness
to
> > exploit?  Might be difficult!  Do not exclude the possibility that there
> > might be more than one entity lurking behind this identity - each with
the
> > same agenda but different modus operandi.  You might succeed in
profiling
> > the wrong one!
>
> Ha Ha! So that's why you are so busy!    :^)

Or why a schizophrenic never lacks a friend!  Which of us really knows?

<SNIP>

> >
> > Irrelevant to the point made.  This was, that, to the average Joe Bahai,
> > there is no substantive or material difference between a Liberal of the
> > dissenting kind and the genuine Covenant Breaker as nominated and
declared
> > by the AO.
>
> "of the dissenting kind" was not included in the former statement. The
> average Joe Bloggs Baha'i does not have a computer and has not even heard
of
> "dissenters". I try to tell them about our little conversations and all I
> get is that blank stare...

Funny!  I have shared a lot of this stuff on the Internet with BIGS and
found horror expressed!

<SNIP>
> I decline your generous conferral of authority upon my "Writings" (with
that
> capitalisation!) Peck peck peck!    :^)
> By the way, I think liberals are not enemies of the faith - I think the
> Faith is run by liberals!

Geez! I'd love to see your definition of a conservative, never mind a
fundamentalist!  I note you have swallowed, in toto, the dear lady and Dr
Mork's argument that the Faith is run by lovely liberals whilst those in
opposition should acquire another title. since "liberal" is a good positive
word it obviously worries some in authority that it has been used  by those
that those in authority detest.  Hence this feeble effort to purloin it!

>
> > enemies are of little consequence - it's the Fifth Column within that
you
> > should fear and denigrate not a few pseudo-academics and ne'er-do-wells
on
> > the outside!
>
> Interesting. Ambiguous. Religious nuts could argue for centuries over the
> meaning of that statement...

And probably will!
>
> If you refer to the "Fifth Column" within each of us, I should heartily
> agree. Always a source of bullets in feet.

No! The Fifth Column of the most dangerous enemies within the Faith, the
enemies the Guardian specifically warned of, the real enemies, not the weak
ones on the outside looking in!

<SNIP>
<SNIP>
> > " Highly predictable" - most definitely. There's not a shred of
> imagination
> > or originality within.
>
> Which demonstrates the point made that this is a far cry from the
randomness
> of terrorism!

Terrorism may appear to be but is not random - terrorists work to an agenda,
one we may not like or even recognise, but one that is real, nonetheless.

<SNIP>
> I include the writings of all authoritative bodies, including the Guardian
> and the UHJ. The Guardian was quite clear in his interpretations. Whether
or
> not people follow correct procedures or their heart's desire can vary from
> community to community, but it is in no wise honest to slander an entire
> community on the basis of a few individuals whose practice is clearly not
> condoned by the rest of the community.

I'm not talking about the actions of individuals but those of the
institutions.

>
> > thereof and how do you manage without one therefore?
>
> Which responsibility to interpret, the UHJ must assume in the absence of a
> better alternative...    ...But that is just my opinion. Whether or not
the
> UHJ has actually assumed this responsibility is yet another question that
> remains to be answered for me....

It cannot assume the function of authoritative interpretation and remain
within the conditions of the W&T and other scriptural texts covering its
establishment and ambit of powers.

<SNIP>
> Given that conferred spiritual infallibility applies to the UHJ, I don't
see
> why they cannot offer their interpretation of the Writings in the complete
> absence of any better, more authoritative alternative. Of course this does
not
> negate the value of personal interpretation, if it is honestly
represented
> as an individual opinion.

It can of course "offer" an interpretation but can it impose it, given that
authoritative interpretation is "ultra vires."  Given that there is no
Guardian and no authoritative interpretation, even legislation from the
House must be suspect as to its "immaculacy."

<SNIP>
> > > > It's a situation that is slowly destroying the
> > > > Bahai community both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world.
> > >
> > > Only on the internet...
> >
> > Wanna bet?  Do you really think that mine opinions, as expressed on the
> > Internet have not also been expressed in the non-electronic world?
>
> Not to the same degree or proportion.
> Even my outspoken views become over-rated on the internet.

There is considerable fall out from the Internet and this will increase.
But let's move to a time when some events spawned on the Internet generate
consequences in the real world!

<SNIP>
> Perhaps you forget that the internet is a notoriously unreliable source of
> information. Reputable peer reviewed journals do not allow supportive
> references to
> internet publications. Just because an increasing number of people rely on
> the internet, doesn't make it any more reliable.

But what of reputable peer reviewed journals which are available on-line?

> So the curious punter hears about the dozens of Baha'i sects on the
internet
> and then goes looking for them in the real world, and there is only one
> substantial organisation, and whole bunch of obsessive wannabes! I mean,
if
> it ain't the case, show me some official government stats to the contrary!

The fact is that he hears of dozens of Bahai sects and this may cause him to
question claims as to "unity" and lack of schism?  But that he hears about
them is evidence as to the pervasive influence of the Internet.

<SNIP>
> > Do define what a "genuine" academic society is.
>
> A genuine academic society publishes based on truthfulness, factual
> correctness, and lack of fallacious argument. A genuine academic society
> offers full legal membership and protects the rights of its members by
> living up to its promises.
>
> Legal membership entails voting rights and the right to elect
administrators
> and/or a board of directors. Further rights include the right to inspect
the
> annual report. The right of the organisation is to condition membership
upon
> a code of practice or ethics. Failure to abide in this code of practice
> usually results in permanent expulsion from the organisation. Scientific
> societies are notorious for expelling fraud-mongers and on occasion,
> intellectual pranksters. The Baha'i Faith is unique amongst religions in
> that it offers its adherents the same legal membership. However the Baha'i
> Faith is far more forgiving on matters of fraud and other breaches of its
> equivalent of the code of practice. Most of the time such breaches are
> treated to extensive consultation, and failing any agreement or
compromise,
> the temporary denial of voting rights. Even the expulsion represented by
> being declared a CB is temporary and expires on the CBs acceptance of the
> community's right to forge its own destiny.

So you're conflating the BF with a genuine academic society and I thought it
was a religious organisation.  Quite obviously as the BF decries current
academic
criteria and methodology it cannot be so conflated, unless you're a BIGS.

> > I'm sure your comment about
> > liberals damaging the reputation of any organisation the lay claim to
will
>
> Now just a minute here! How do we go from "self proclaimed liberals who
are
> anything but liberal" to "liberals"?
> It would seem that you are dissembling my words to infer that I stated
> something different. Is this really true?

No! You dissemble your own words!
<SNIP>
> >
> > My God!  You disagree with Counsellors!  On what matters of greatest
> > import - pray tell? Such earth shattering controversies as to whether
one
> > puts the milk or the tea in the cup first?
>
> How about the number of pins that can dance on the head of an angel?

Yep!  That sounds about the right level of Bahai intellectualism and
academia.

<SNIP>
> I think the UHJ can do what they
> please. Once again, I am told that this is not so. My beliefs
> deviate from the official and here I am! I just don't go around confusing
my
> opinions with the official version. So who cares anyway?

Now this is confusing!  Does not the House of Horrors think it can do as it
pleases, being the head of the Faith?  If so how can you be confusing your
opinions?  True enough however - nobody cares!

<SNIP>
> Who says I have to be a "radical" or a "dissenter" to have a difference of
> opinion. It would be different if I went around proselytising people to my
> point of view. On the other hand, what did Baha'u'llah say about
dissension?
> (Hint: 3 characters with the ASCII values: 65, 100, 104)

But you told us how bold and adventurous you were in disagreeing with the
powers that be but not one whit of evidence to back this up.  Methinks you
are a "sounding brass" - not invective, ad hominem but justified conclusion
on the basis if the evidence (or lack of) available.

<SNIP>
> > You haven't pushed the envelope of test driving toy cars, never mind,
> > rattling the AO cage!
>
> Peck, peck, peck! "Mine's bigger than yours" and all that excess
baggage...

FYI - "pushing the edge of the envelope" is taking the system to its design
specifications and beyond.  In present context this means "dissent".

> However, what would you know?
> Besides if all this intolerance really exists, then what of "Theocracies
and
> Other Disasters"? I mean if it is that difficult to stir things up, what
are
> you so concerned about?

Who said it was difficult to stir things up?  The House of Horrors can stir
things up quite easily - only being surprised by the fact some people call
it to task for the stupidity of its actions.
>
> > It's not my way to boast but I've collected a few AO
> > scalps over the years and, quite frankly, you haven't got what it takes
to
> > emulate that!
>
> However, I know that you know not what I know.

I know exactly what I do when I wax the tail of AO jocks and assist them to
auger in and buy the farm!

> I know of my own self, that you are not in a position to make that kind of
> judgement. So, what are you trying to achieve by saying such things if
they
> don't have any meaning for me? I think this is an important question with
an
> important answer. Not for me, or the rest of us, but for you, and for your
> contentment in life.

Not in the least!  I am most heartily contented with life and all of its
many foibles!

> Another question. How does making such judgements entail being meek, a
> virtue you seem enthusiastic, dare I say, "inspired" about...? Do you not
> want to be meek?

Who ever did say or assert that I was meek?  Some sheep in wolf's clothing
like Miss Maddy by any chance?

> By the way, until Mr Cole answers my reply to his "rights of Iranian
Baha'is
> and hypocrisy"(See soc.religion.bahai archives, 25/01/1998), some might
say
> I've got his "scalp"    :^) It is curious that my reply remains unanswered
> to this day. But who cares? Cole evidently doesn't, and neither do I.

Last I heard the man was still going on all burners so I don't think you can
claim any credit for a kill there. I only expect credit for a kill of AO
types when promising careers in the AO are terminated by my waxing their
tails.

<SNIP>
> I've heard a few stories that have made me drool for a little academic
> confrontation...    ...seems as though it is all talk - in more ways than
> one.

BMALATO!

> > > Enough coprolite, OK?
> >
> > To date - you've produced some but I know you can produce even more!
And
> > Wow! Here it comes!  In great torrents!
>
> Well, unlike you, or Glaysher, or Cole, etc. I am in the thick of it.

Right up to your neck in it!

>Unlike
> you or Glaysher, or Cole, etc. I have very much more to go on than hearsay
> and anecdotes biased to a particular, dare I say out of touch, sector of
the
> Baha'i Community.

But we have only your word for this - anecdotal evidence at best

<SNIP>
> I have to admit that your sense of humour is to be commended. "Great
> Torrents of [Coprolite]" (inferring both liquidity and fossilisation) That
> one's got to go to a special place in the Hall of Funnies. It is not the
> scatalogical implications that are so funny, but the absurdity of the
> thought. I really have to applaud you on a very funny misuse of the terms
> that no-doubt comes from a sound understanding of these terms and of the
> engineering of humour.

I first came across this field of study i.e Coprolite when I observed that
fundie-loony BIGS all seemed to be well qualified in that area.  I surmise
that accomplishment in this field is a pre-requisite for adoption of AO
directives and understandings.
<SNIP>
> > Right to the point of delaying obfuscating and totally ignoring anything
> > that's difficult but everything else is addressed and proves totally
> > inspiring and uplifting!
>
> So waddayawantfacryinoutloud!
> Consultation or dictation?

Consultation is the Bahai philosophy - expulsion is the Bahai way!

> Obfuscating what? How do you distinguish disorganisation and
> procrastination? Is the sample random or filtered?

Random?  Anybody with the guts to come forward and tell the story.  The
informants come from all over - there seems to be no geographical link.

> Besides, surely you know that it is an ill omen when the trains run on
time?

<SNIP>
> Actually, I do! Complete amateurs. Anyone who on investigating Baha'i
> membership criteria, is incapable of thinking laterally to the meagre
extent
> of seeing the analogy of membership procedures in regular organisations
and
> companies, with that of the Baha'i
> Faith has no right claiming to be anything else!

The thing is that nobody disputes this - every organisation has the right to
make rules.  The rules of the BF were laid by its Founders.  The problem is
that the guys, kicked out or invited to leave, contend that they haven't
broken the rules.

Ditto anyone who uses
their
> academic position to push an idea based on hearsay, generalisation and
data
> collected exclusively from only one corner of the community - Instead of
> hard work, thousands of randomly sampled statistical figures accepted
without
> bias with respect to the result they might favour.

One assumes this refers to your own bete noir, the one and only Juan Cole.
The article in question was peer reviewed which is more than can be said of
AO propaganda.

<SNIP>
> > There's that word again - "inspiring".
>
> So what? What problem exactly, do you have with such creative stimuli as
> fill people with enthusiasm, and motivation to do more than they say? Are
> you not sufficiently enthusiastic about meekness to extol its virtues to
> me? Is meekness therefore not inspiring to you? Why should there be a
> problem when others find something inspiring?

The problem is that the use of the word "inspiring" to describe all Bahai
events, eventually becomes boring and uninspiring.

<SNIP>
>
> As Norman Vincent Peale would put it, the difference between happiness
> and sadness is the difference between judging the glass as half full or
> half empty. There is no point in focussing on the "uninspiring" because
that
> does not bring happiness. Furthermore, focus on the "uninspiring" by
> definition is defeatist, and has the ultimate result of depression and
> inactivity. That is because the uninspiring by definition is
demotivational:
> About as healthy as shooting up with morphine. Furthermore, "uninspiration
"
> by definition is the opposite of creative stimuli. What point is there in
> that? We might as well bring back the Stone Age...

Has this not happened within the AO?

<SNIP>
> ...I could come to your defense by stating that you are not criticising
> individuals in the last post, but rather an organisation. An organisation,
> is in my view, fair game _if_ the merchantability of their product is
> questionable. However, I understand that you seek to persuade.

Incorrect assumption!

Invective
> persuades no-one. Invective only causes people to become even more
stubborn
> about their position. Read Dale Carnegie and practice with others. If
memory
> serves me correctly, Glaysher has both literary and sales expertise.
Consult
> with Glaysher. You do not persuade people to buy from you by hurling this
> kind of invective.

Who's trying to sell anything?  Apart from the AO of course!

>
> On the other hand, it could sound silly to some, if you say your criticism
> is up front when there is no CC secretarial@bwc.org anywhere in the
header.
> Not all of us believe we are being monitored.

Belief does not negate the fact.  The lads monitor everything!

> > backs, straight in their faces or did you not know about the Monitors at
> > Haifa who read these posts for them and report anything of interest?
> Expect
> > they've got a thick file on me by now!
>
> I expect they have better things to do...

They do but they don't!

<SNIP>
> > You do have a point abut materialism - it's rampant in the Bahai
> community!
> > As for disillusionment with religion - well, when it can be used to
> inspire
> > suicidal fanatics to drive aircraft into the WTC, when it is utilised to
> > justify the killing of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland,
when
> > it gives rise to Falwell, Robertson, Paisley and that guy Jones who
> suicided
> > his followers, is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with it!
>
> Is it possible that it is materialism that inspires these things, and not
> religion as such? Religion just happens to be convenient front or label.

I would have thought that self-immolation was the very antithesis of
materialism. No point in getting loads money for a job if you're not alive
at the end of it to enjoy the fruits.

<SNIP>
> > Come back Torquemada - there's a place for you in the AO!  Come back
when
> we
> > need you!"

> These people are not disposed of. They are still there. They still voice
> their opinion and claim authority for themselves. It's just that no-one
> really bothers to listen anymore. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Which is precisely why you need Torquemada - he knew how to deal with these
types and, by God, the state stood back and gave him full support. None of
this stupid stuff like Courts and so forth - a good old fashioned stringing
up and you do't hear from these liberals again!

<SNIP>
> As for these fossilised faecal pellets about incumbency; if what you claim
> about all this widespread intolerance was so true, and everyone was so
very
> dissatisfied and disillusioned, the administrators would be getting
kicked
> out at every election. It seems that everyone is so pleased with the way
> things are being run that they are not inclined to change their votes.
What?
> Shhh! Is that the sound of
> "nobody's listening" I hear? More Zs? Perhaps a snore or six million? Or
> could this be a sign of astonishing levels of unity?

NO! It's the sound of snoring as the delegates are gently lulled to slumber
by the only reports they get to consider at Convention, the report of the
incumbent assembly which has done a great job over the last year ...
"emergence from obscurity" ... "entry by troops" .... "growing maturity"
.... "embryonic" .... "inspiring victories" ...... Oops! Nearly nodded off,
myself!  BTW all quotes there are from the Report of the NSA (1892 - date) -
each and every year, the same.

<SNIP>
> No. Materialism has always opposed human progress.
> Generations of nobles and lords and their wannabes have held back human
> progress for the sake of maintaining the right to rob the peasants. If
> anything, religion has upset such insidious plans, and what is the
result? -

Yup!  Religion took over the right to rob the peasants and keep them under
subjugation.  But like I said when society relegated religion to its proper
place in the gutter, the lot of the people improved.
<SNIP>
> So how do you unite with the Hitler's of the world? Stalin tried that, and
> you know the rest...

Always argue a case from the extremes!

> Unity is not what CBs want. Just division so they can have a piece of the
> pie, and another and another
> and, dammit-let's just take the whole thing! Like Hitler...

He wanted unity - of everything under his control.  Just like Haifa wants
everything under its control, just like the CBs .....

> > Abdul Baha emphasised freedom of conscience - you cannot unite people
> unless
> > you are tolerant of different points of view and interpretations.
>
> Correct. However demands for allegiance from those whose leadership is
> unwanted does not constitute a meagre difference of opinion. Neither is
> fraudulently presenting a personal opinion as the official dictate a
matter
> of meagre personal opinion.

Geez! For somebody with academic pretensions you sure do a lot of jumping
and talk a loada bollix!

Firstly liberals do not claim leadership. Theirs is presentation of a
difference of opinion as their own and nobody else's.  For one who has
pushed the edge of the envelope of dissent this is depressingly and boringly
like the official Party line - it's certainly as uninformed as it is.

<SNIP>
> > If this Faith is the Cause of God, none can destroy it or damage it.
>
> OOOH!
> How fanatical.
> How fundamentalist.
> How so very Jackie Fischer!
> Can you do that again?
> Since when did you cross the floor anyway?    >:^
> Every other Cause of God has eventually been buried beneath the dust of
> materialism. What makes us so special?

Nothing!  Except that maybe you're getting buried a lot sooner under the
mantle of materialism.

<SNIP>
> >  And you won't have love and unity unless you have
> > tolerance of those who differ.
>
> As long as such "differences" are not forced upon others, there is no
> problem. It is not the differences that are not tolerated, but rather the
> forcing of such views upon others.

Nobody is forcing anything apart from the AO - it started this by descending
upon obscure academics who were doing what academics do so well - waffle
night and day about the slightest smidgen.  And all of a sudden Antiquated
Bored Missiles descend upon them with "Covenantly Challenging" remarks being
scattered to all corners of the place.  So the academics start moaning about
strictures on academic freedom and all of that crud.  Now I'm all in favour
of leaving the old farts to argue amongst themselves - we all know they talk
in tongues and bore the pants of everybody.  You wouldn't inflict them on
your friends.  So anybody with any sense leaves them to carry on and takes
no notice of them.

And all of a sudden there's all of this talk about restrictions on academic
freedom and the whole lot of them are out on the Internet and, strangely and
for most of them the first time in their lives, they're talking plain common
sense about the way they are not left to do their own thing but are having
views imposed upon them by total morons who wouldn't know the difference
between black and white.

<SNIP>
> Actually, the vision restricts the rules, as we shall see...
>
> > Rules govern and restrict behaviour absolutely, which is perfectly
> > all right until you have to break them
>
> Well, Iranian Baha'is got to educate their children in direct
contravention
> of Iranian Law - Technically in breach of Baha'i Law, but governed by the
> principles of conscience not to mention the values of the Faith, this
> attracts no sanction because these values disqualify such rules from being
> so rigid, or taken "beyond the bounds of moderation".

Like I said about rules- "perfectly all right until you have to break them>"

<SNIP>
> > That's the difference between a Liberal and a BIGs - the former has no
> means
> > of restricting the appeal of the BF whilst the BIGS rests content with
his
> > rules.  You have no room for me and others like me within your purview
of
> > the BF

> If that was true, I'd not be communicating with you.
> Sure there is room for you, I just don't have to blindly swallow
everything
> you say.

There is no room for Juan Cole, Alison Marshall etc - there's no room for
me!!

<SNIP>
>
> It is also "clap-trap" to equate "attempts at schism" in my own words,
with
> "schism" in your words.
>
> > > 1) Failure to deal justly by the vast majority of Baha'is who have
> > > absolutely no interest whatsoever in neglecting religious issues to
> > > negotiate away their rights as members of the Baha'i Faith whose
entire
> > > point is love and unity.
> >
> > There are no rights to be negotiated away
>
> When you are sold a bill of goods, you inherit the rights to those goods.
> There _are_ rights.

So the right to a fundamentalist, literalist faith system exists and is
non-negotiable.  have you told Abdul Baha about this?

>
> > nor does anybody want to do that.
>
> Except the CBs who want to run the show in spite of the fact that no-one
> wants their leadership...

What CBs?  Who brought them into the discussion on Liberalism and its place
in the scheme of things?

> > > 2) Disintegration of the AO into splinter groups
> >
> > That just is not happening
>
> Never said it was. I said it was a cost of tolerating attempts at schism.
>
> > although the BF is starting to develop a lot more
> > splinter groups.  Did you realise that the House has formed one - those
> who
> > believe in the BF but are dispensed from allegiance to the House by kind
> > grant of permission from the House to that effect!
>
> Please elaborate! Extra bonus points for verifiable references from the
UHJ,
> Central Figures, etc....

No need - those who profess belief but do not meet the requirements of
membership as defined by the House.

<SNIP>
> Not really. They have no collective voice. Some whacker comes out of the
> woodwork and mass murders thousands of people claiming it is done in the
> name of
> Islam, and Islam has no voice to reply collectively on behalf of its
> people... Individuals like you and me can jump up and down and quote Sura
> 2:190 until we are blue in the face. However, the local self titled
> hate-mongers are always more convincing than meagre individuals such as
> ourselves because people are not taught critical thinking.

Like the whackers referred to in the letter from the House that you refer to
at the beginning of this tome.
<SNIP>
> > > 4) Lack of love and unity within the Baha'i Faith as evidenced by the
> > purile
> > > need to have segregated systems of administration, places of worship,
> > > deepening, and consultation.
> >
> > For what reason?  Who's advocating this?  It's a new one to me!
>
> Well, let's see? The CBs are _doing_ it.
> Don't deeds speak louder than words eh?

I thought the CBs were arguing that all should unite under the living
Guardian.

<SNIP>
> > Trying to persuade the AO to take an inclusivist
>
> One man's persuasion is another man's extortion...
>
> > approach and negotiate a
>
> One man's negotiation is another's unconditional capitulation.
>
> (No, these little gems are not original either: "One man's god is another
> man's devil" ring a bell for you?)
>
> The point is that such are threatening to deliberately contribute damage,
> rather than warning of consequences beyond their control. That is the
> difference between persuasion and extortion.

So you assess and judge the motivation of those who post to these or other
groups or are otherwise active in this debate.  You suggest they are there
to deliberately inflict damage.  If that were the case they would not be
voicing their opinions - they would be engaged in other activities of a more
direct form.

>
> > resolution to the conflict in which everybody wins and nobody loses.
Now
> if
> > such a deal happened and were promulgated by the House are you implying
> that
> > if these liberals were accommodated in any way, your rights would
thereby
> be
> > compromised and you would arise to oppose any such thing?
>
> The liberals are not the problem.
> They are the ones running the show.

That's the second time you've said that - you must believe it!
>
> It's the loonies who think we shouldn't choose our administration
> collectively, who are the problem. Accommodate the separatists, and it
will
> be at the expense of the rights of those members who adopted the Faith
> because of the "religion is for love and unity" deal they are promised in
> the first place.

WTF are the "separatists" in this equation?  Do you have a clue about what
you're saying?  On second thoughts I withdraw the question.  There's no need
to put it.

<SNIP>

> > Do you think that booting somebody out after 20 years of membership
> without
> > prior warning or consultation is anything other than an act of violence?
>
> 1) That is not how it is done. Why should I believe this claim of yours if
I
> have never seen it for myself? Remember, I am in the thick of all this. I
am
> not some pretender academic selecting convenient stories according to how
> well they fit my particular opinion. My data set is a truly random sample.

And excludes Alison Marshall - which means it is truly random.

>
> 2) Even this does not amount to violence.
>
> > If
> > you really feel the need to get rid of dangerous folk, then according to
> > your own exposition, there are rules to govern this, so gawd damn it,
> follow
> > the darned things!
>
> As far as my random data sample is concerned, we do. There is no hard
> evidence to the contrary.

Not in your sample which emphasises the randomness of it.

<SNIP>
> > Wot - www.bahai.org is woefully unreliable as a source of information.
I
> > knew that!
>
> www.bahai.org  ain't the internet. You ought to poke around some of the
> other websites on offer (no pun intended). However, you can only guage its
> reliability by comparing it with the real thing...

Funny!  You know up until now I thought only sex was better than the real
thing!

<SNIP>
>
> So we are agreed on this point. However the terrorists are crooks. The
same
> kind that pronounce their own authority and refuse to accept the fact that
> the vast majority of people reject their leadership. Without regulation,
> they resort to murder to prove their point. The diagnostic feature of
crooks
> is their own ego.

Well - Mick Collins and his bunch were branded as "terrorists" by the
British Government and they had the support of the people, well, the Irish
people or most of them!
>
> > You have Irish genes
>
> Straight off the wash-board

That explains a lot about you - most people get them from their parents!
>
> > - how do you describe McCracken, Munro, Tone, Pearse,
> > Connolly and Collins - "terrorists" or "patriots"?
>
> Try as natural consequences of earlier historical events.

Or dodge the issue.  The strong always label the weak as "terrorists" until
the weak overcome the strong when they earn the appellation of patriot,
freedom fighter and hero.  Of course the real difference is the methodology.
The aspiring patriot fights honourably - man to man, soldier against
soldier, trying not to involve or hurt civilians.  But in a war of
independence the aspiring patriot relies on support from the civilian so the
civilian becomes a combatant, which starts to blur definitions.

<SNIP>
> > Depends on your
> > partiality - doesn't it?
>
> Cynical, but true. The problem with partiality is that people assume that
> there is only one dividing line...
>
> What never ceases to amaze me is how people in other countries
> fail to exploit the opportunity of learning from the tragic mistakes of
> others.

Or how religions never draw lessons from the secular world!

<SNIP>
> I agree, the meek are on the winning side. Mahatma Ghandi demonstrated
that
> beautifully. I do take this seriously, it is some of the other stuff I
find
> a humourous. "House of Horrors"! I mean, where were you when the WTC was
> hit? Watching that was sheer horror. Sickening. Nothing else in our soft,
> luxurious, cushy Western life compares!

No more horrifying than many other things that have happened and, in my
personal perspective, a lot less horrifying that some personal experiences.
It's a lot less disconcerting to see an explosion on television than to see
one fifty yards away, especially as you watch the fireball headed yours and
pull yourself off the floor afterwards, with no clear impression as to how
you got to be lying there, with smoke and fumes choking your airways.

<SNIP>
> But I cannot help but wonder if there will be other Mr. Bean
> Ladens and Dubyas, if the descendants of each side will still be at
> eachother's throats - you know the old skit, "One evil deed inspires
> another"

There will always be those who forswear negotiation as a means of resolving
differences and resort to violence instead.  And those who forswear
negotiation beget violence from their own and others!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 4:30 AM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110040700.4df6f771@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pg8ls$i0tg8$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > BTW I don't demonise anybody - I call things as I see them!
>
> You are painting the Baha'i community with a broad brush in your
> original statement.  Your statement said that the average Baha'i
> thinks that a "liberal" is a Covenant breaker.  That is a negative
> statement.

It may be "negative" in your purview but that does not detract from the fact
that it is true.  Dave, I've been there and been called a CB behind my
back - long before the Internet even existed.

>
> Broad + Negative = Demonizing.

Incorrect on several counts.  Firstly I am not demonising - I report a
phenomenon which the BIGS should address and rectify.  Secondly I am
reporting based on mine own observations and those of others - there is a
factual base for my assertion.  Thirdly a "negative" only remains negative
if it is not counteracted to make a positive.

> >
> > I did not state that the entire Bahai community is terrorised - fact is,
> > that individuals who step outside certain boundaries, as defined by the
AO,
> > mark well, will be subject to terror tactics to induce their falling
into
> > line OR leaving the community.
>
> Considering that those boundaries are defined by Baha'u'llah and
> Abdul-Baha and crystalized by the Gaurdian then anyone who strays
> from them should be warned.  If that warning scares them then it would
> be no different than the fright felt when one realizes that the car
> you were driving in nearly crashed.

The boundaries are set by the current AO, allegedly based on writings by
Abdul Baha and the Guardian.  You will find nothing in their writings to
suggest that a critical review of the "Bahai World", an article proposing
reform of the institutions, a discussion on infallibility or a debate on
whether the current ban on women on the House is incorrect constitute
"covenantly challenging" behaviour.  That's an interpretation imposed by the
AO which appears not to want any discussion which is not on its agenda.
That is contrary to Bahai principles.

>
> > But the general overal
> > morbidity of the Community in terms of numbers indicates that all is not
> > well.  I don't attribute this to the terror tactics but to the
overwhelming
> > introspection caused by the need to protect the Faith and that need is
often
> > met by terror tactics when there is a clear and present danger to the
> > interests of the AO.
>
> I know all is not well.  The AO knows all is not well.  They are
> working to fix it.

It is not working to fix it, as you put it, for it is stifling any and all
debate or discussion which strays from its pre-determined agenda.
Consultation has to be free if it is to produce the desired results -
suppression of topics or discussion is therefore contrary to Bahai
principles.

> > You don't need to terrorise a community - you only take action against
those
> > who are perceived as a danger and then isolate them from the community
by
> > demonising them, as in the denunciation of Dialogue and A Modest
Proposal.
> > The little lambs follow suit - but, if any step out of line, they get
their
> > asses kicked.
>
> Even if this were true - it _still_ does not equate with terrorism.

What is it then?

> > > Bull.  The AO listens when what is being said actually fits within the
> > > Covenant.
> >
> > Yup! - THEIR definition of the Covenant after set aside of Abdul Baha's
> > statements on freedom of speech etc.
>
> The AO is not opposed to freedom of speech.  But that speech may never
> take the form of opposition to the Covenant - Abdul-Baha and
> Baha'u'llah confirmed this.

Who is opposing the Covenant?  How can academic discussion be rated as
"opposition" when, as everybody knows, academics waffle but actually never
do anything to have their ideas executed.  They are not "hands on" people -
they are not the ones who organise opposition or indulge in tactics designed
to force or impose acceptance of their ideas.

>
> > > How can anyone compromise the Word of God?  You can't.
> >
> > We're not talking about the Word of God - we're talking about the
systemic
> > corruption of religion to suit the power lust of its leaders, as has
been,
> > is and always will be the way with certain religious leaders.
>
> When someone can clearly show me systemic corruption then I will
> believe you.  Thus far all of the online critics have shown is a few
> individuals with bad judgement, an immature Assembly or two, and the
> rest have been shadows and speculation.

How many examples do you need?  But one FAILURE of the system is sufficient
to demonstrate that the system is not perfect and therefore in need of
reform.  Indeed reform is a continuous process for as soon as one defct is
fixed, another appears.  The UHJ botched Alison's expulsion - she was kicked
out without forewarning.  That is an abuse of power or a systemic failure.
It requires to be changed lest it happen again and the impetus for that
change should come from the Bahais themselves who are the ultimate victims.

>
> Baha'u'llah wanted to limit it.  Do I need to quote Him when he talks
> about limits on liberty and the need for moderate speech?

And what is more moderate than an academic waffling on a list or in
professional journals that nobody important ever reads.  There were 175
people on Talisman, none of whom were seething revolutionaries.  The tone of
the discussions was heated at times, immoderate on occasion but these guys
were (are) academics to whom this type of behaviour is quite normal.  Nobody
was shot or otherwise assaulted - nobody really fell out with anybody else
because of some academic tiff.  Nobody was told to "Fuck Off!" - no threats
were made or carried out.  No revolutionary movement was advocated - no
direct action was advised.  What could be more moderate?

>
> Yes - we no longer have an infallible interpretor.  What we do have is
> infallible application and execution of the writings.  Baha'u'llah
> commanded His followers to elect representatives who would gather and
> consult on His Writings.  Whatever they decided was to be obeyed.
> Further we could always appeal to them or to higher bodies.  That is
> our guide.

You cannot have infallible application without infallible interpretation.
The governing bodies are not infallible they are charged with the affairs of
the community but they also have responsibilities as well as rights.  You
cannot appeal to the UHJ and expect an impartial consideration if the
actions that are appealed are those of the UHJ.  No man can be expected to
judge fairly in his own case!

<SNIP>

>
> Thus convieniently leaving out the fact that many who resolved their
> difficulties through consultation with the AO are actually thriving
> inside the Baha'i community.

No I have not forgotten them - but I also have not forgotten those who have
not resolved their problems.

>
> > > You know Dermod you are really good at exaggeration.  There is not
> > > terrorism in the Baha'i Faith.  There are laws and punishment for
> > > breaking laws - Baha'u'llah gave us that.
> >
> > Is there a law against discussion via E-mail in the Aqdas?  So what
"laws"
> > did they break?  Why were the Dialogue editors castigated for something
they
> > didn't publish, that was still under review?  Was it perhaps because
they
> > were seen as nasty bastards who threatened the cushy jobs held by
certain
> > people in the AO?
>
> The discussion over email were a clear attempt at establishing an
> authoritative view and convincing others to follow along with it.

Sorry Dave but that is bull!  They were discussions just like this -
exchange of views, certainly partisan, certainly forceful at times BUT that
is not the same as establishing or endeavouring to establish an
authoritative view.  Until you see that you're not going to understand the
feelings of those spurned by the AO, you cannot appreciate the alienation
and you cannot come to terms with the fact that many of them are still
vocal, in the hope, mistaken in my opinion, that the AO will listen and
rectify.

That
> is clearly outside of Baha'i Law.  As for Dialogue - you know that I
> feel that was a big mess with mistakes all around.  The editors of
> dialogue were mistakenly seen as undermining the process of National
> Convention.  It was a mistake to denounce them from the podium.  The
> NSA mistake of going balistic and overreacted.

An awful lot of messes, Dave, and NO efforts to rectify them (BTW I use
capitalisation to emphasise, not to shout) - Dialogue, Nima, Alison, Michael
etc.

> > I don't give two fiddlers' farts who leads the BF - personally I'm done
with
> > it as I am with any and all organised religion.  What I care about is
> > justice and what I hate is the hypocrisy that rides roughshod over
sensitive
> > souls in the name of a God most of these buggers couldn't recognise if
they
> > met Him in person.  Your BF which has a powerful, beautiful and
attractive
> > philosophy has been ruined by the megalomaniacs and bigots who run it!
>
>
> But Dermod - Baha'u'llah said that His laws were Manifest Justice.
> They are _the_ definition of what is just and what is unjust.  You are
> judging the situation with your standard.  It can't be weighed on that
> scale.  You want the Baha'i Faith to conform to your narrow view of
> justice.

No. It has to conform to its own view as enunciated by Baha'u'llah and duly
interpreted by successors empowered so to do.  The current AO flies outside
of those interpretations, never mind the original word, with its own
nebulous interpretation of the Covenant

> That is not how this Faith functions.

Absolutely correct!  On that we are agreed!

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Your bahai Newsgroup Experience - How to IMPROVE IT
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:01 AM

Don,

"Onandagus7" <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011011011126.11331.00003253@mb-fv.news.cs.com...
> Fred,
>
> I sympathize very much with the spirit of your attempts to stop censorship
and
> oppression within your religious community. But I think you are making
some
> strategic errors. However much intimidation you may see other Baha'is
using
> against dissenters, the word "terrorist" is simply too loaded a term to
convey
> this. "Terrorism" does not denote non-violent intimidation, and even if it
did,
> the term carries too much emotional baggage, much like the words "cult"
and
> "brainwashing." People usually use these words only when they wish to
dismiss
> or demonize those they disagree with. You can't _realistically_ expect to
> influence people with this sort of inaccurate and inflammatory language.

I agree with you that the use of the word "terrorist" is emotive at the
moment.  Nonetheless it does properly describe tactics used by the AO
against its perceived enemies.  Last night local Television (in Northern
Ireland) showed a 76 year old woman who was absolutely terrified out of her
wits.  She had received a crude threatening letter advising her that unless
she vacated her home something nasty would befall her.  She is a member of
the Protestant community living adjacent to the current School protest in
Ardoyne, North Belfast.  The threat purportedly came from the "Catholic
Reaction Force" - a title that has been used in the past to claim
responsibility for sectarian murder.  In the current atmosphere that crude
letter is sufficient to intimidate and terrorise and that is its purpose.

To be declared a Covenant Breaker is the greatest sanction of the AO -
shunning is the consequence to the extent that even a spouse must divorce a
CB or face the same penalty.  To somebody whose social and family life is
bound up and inextricably linked with the Bahai community, the threat of
being declared a Covenant Breaker is one filled with immense horror and
fear.  It is sufficient to intimidate and terrorise and that is its purpose.

There is another thread on this very subject which starts with a post made
by Fred on 30 September.  I'm not the best at giving you URLs for these
things but this is the message that started it -

"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:<9p79aa$gp743$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...

and this is one which gives my understanding of and attempted definition of
terrorism.

 "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9pb8fm$hupga$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...

> Also, as an aside, while I don't know everyone you listed as a "Baha'i
> fanatic," from what I've seen Pat and Matt really don't fit the bill. They
come
> across to me, as an impartial outsider, as moderate true believers.

I append my own opinion of Fred (which I have posted to the above thread): -

"Furthermore the
imputation of motives of hatred to him is questionable.  I detect more the
anger and despair born of utter frustration at the perceived destruction of
something that is most precious to him.  Fred certainly is intemperate at
times and most annoying at others.  Yet there is a blatant sincerity behind
what he does, no matter how exasperating or self defeating it might appear
to be.  I can empathise with Fred - in times past when terrorist outrages
have killed friends of mine, I have been tempted to reach for the gun and
lash out at any and all people who just might be even sympathetic to those
who have committed the foul deed.  And as we know only too well here -
terrorism in one community spawns its counterpart in the other.  Fred is a
product of the AO - if he is a monster, it created the monster!  That is the
tragedy but that is the inevitable product of a system that polarises
opinion by stigmatising and demonising those who do not adhere to a strict
fundamentalist interpretation."

Fred's methodology arouses a great depth of feeling - those who disagree
with it, he tends to group under the heading of fundamentalist.

I have not kill-filed any on Fred's list - the only victim of that procedure
on my machine is one who goes under the name of Darrick Evenson, for
unmitigated racism of the first degree.  From what I can determine his views
have not moderated at all.

I agree that Matt is not the worst in the world and would add Dave Fiorito
and Brian Walker to that category (the latter sadly has not been about much
recently).  As for Pat Kohli - a lot would depend on the thickness of the
brown envelope he'd be prepared to offer for my endorsement -
notwithstanding the fact that underneath that strange surname, there are
some decent Irish genes.  Only joking!  Pat 's a good type too!

As ever,

Dermod

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Don Bradley

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Your bahai Newsgroup Experience - How to IMPROVE IT
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:43 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110111115.2369140a@posting.google.com...
Dave
>
> Sunning is the legitimate treatment of those who have broken the
> Covenant.

Tan their hides!  (Sorry! Cheap awful pun!)

> It is something that every Baha'i knows.  If someone feels
> "terror" when they find out that they are moving towards breaking the
> Covenant that is a good thing.  With out fear of conequences how would
> laws ever be enforced.

In the W&T Abdul Baha admonishes to "shun THE (emphasis added) Covenant
Breakers."  That definite article gives a completely different dimension to
the phrase - he did not say "shun covenant breakers" or "shun all covenant
breakers" - he said "shun THE Covenant Breakers" - a particular group of CBs
alive and up to dirty deeds at the time he wrote the W&T.  Other quotations
advise shunning evil doers but I would hold that this is no more than advice
to disregard their machinations and intent.  Indeed is it not advice to shun
those who work against the Covenant rather than those who seek deeper
understanding thereof ?

I note however that you regard "terror" as legitimate when applied to
"covenantly challenging" behaviour.  It is a short step from that to its
abuse, by misinterpretation of the Covenant, especially when there is no
Protector of the Covenant alive.

>
> The fear of breaking the covenant is more like the fear felt when a
> criminal is caught and convicted, and realizes the punishment that
> awaits.
>
> The law is there for a reason.  Baha'u'llah expected it to be
> enforced.  If a Baha'i is approaching the point where they are going
> to be considered a CB then they need to know.

And how do you deal with a conscientious Covenant Breaker especially those
who belive that the UHJ is itself a nest of CBs who have rejected the living
Guardian?  The very thing that Shoghi Effendi was supposed to prevent has
happened - the Cause is split.  All that is left is a very imperfect
understanding of the Covenant and no assurance of continued Divine Guidance
in its further interpretation.  Without a Guardian how can you have CBs for
only he can interpret whether individual interpretation of the Covenant is
in accord with the Divine Will.  The UHJ cannot do that save by default and
that is bound to be prone to error.

>
> The woman in your example was on the end of a criminal threat.  A
> Baha'i who is close to being considered a CB would be hearing a
> serious, legitimate warning of the possibilty of a legitimate law
> being enforced.

The UHJ is not a judicial body charged with protection of the Covenant - it
cannot therefore declare anybody to be a CB in the original meaning of the
concept without acting ultra vires.  Perhaps that's where disenrollment came
from.  In any case the practice is incontrovertibly alien to the growing
practice of human rights law.  It's a dead duck!

And in any case - terror is terror!  To endeavour to instill fear into one
who abides by the dictates of his conscience is imoral!

> Do you see the difference?  On is criminal and the other lawful.

An unsafe conclusion!

Dermod

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5  - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Saturday, October 13, 2001 4:30 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110100806.19bc52db@posting.google.com...
Dave,

> > So forget Fred's editorial and look upon it as an archive of soursce
> > material, which is the way I approached it.  Editorialising comes after
the
> > facts, not before them.
>
> But his archives a fragments of facts where some important facts have
> gone missing.

The only "facts" missing are those of the AO which doesn't want to expose
them.

<SNIP>
> > I personally think that there are those within the AO who feel they have
a
> > duty and a right to spy on whomsoever they please.  In that sense
therefore
> > there is an element of the "Secret Police".  "Competent", however is the
> > last word I would think of to describe it!
>
> Yes Dermod - I agree on both counts.  But the subtle point here is
> that the "spying" is done on individual initiative and is not a part
> of Baha'u'llah's Administrative Order.  So the problem is not
> systemic.

Incorrect! Paul Dodenhoff left because he had been instructed as an ABM to
spy on people.  Such a purpose is not in the Writings - it's a part of AO
corruption.

> > Mine own encounters with the AO (long before I ever heard of Fred or
Juan)
> > left that impression firmly melded in my mind.  These guys haven't a
clue
> > how to deal with conflict and contention, especially when it comes from
a
> > non-Bahai who does not and will not play according to their made up
rules.
>
> Agreed.  Our community is too small and to young to have effective
> LSAs all over the world.

It has feck all to do with smallness etc.!  The Northern Ireland community
is full of professionals who are good at their jobs and then come to the AO
to make a total balls-up of everything they touch.  Why is this?  Do they
think that Old World Order efficiency and concern have no part in religion?

>
> > I am a great believer in "due process."  But do they learn from this?
Not
> > in triduum of Tuesdays and why should they!  have they not been invested
> > with Divine Guidance on this?  But have they not forgotten that God
helps
> > those who help themselves - what is in the Writings is principle and
> > guidance which show the way but must be reinforced with the
particularities
> > of rules and must be uniformly applied by reference to precedent.
Principle
> > and guidance is not especially good law and good law is useless unless
> > uniformly applicable to all equally and without favour.  That is why law
is
> > based on legislation and case law - rules and precedent as to how to
> > interpret them so that what is illegal in one district will be illegal
in
> > all.  Given that clarity the citizen knows exactly where he stands .
>
>
> Preaching to the converted here Dermod.  I understand what you mean
> and I agree with it.  Again - this has to due with our lack of
> administrative experience and skill.  That will come with time.  This
> is also not a systemic problem.

Wrong again Dave!  The AO has no interest in a due process which might show
forth its own corruption.  You need a free press to oversee the overseers
and that's one thing the AO does not tolerate.  That's why Dialogue and
Modest Proposal were put to death!  That's why they hate Juan and the rest
of the Wild Bunch - they are not cowed and subservient!  They don't believe
the crap!

>
<SNIP>
> > Demons- NO!  Fools, pedagogues and hypocrites aplenty though!  People
should
> > learn from mistakes - be sensible enough to fess up and not repeat the
> > error.  But to learn from mistakes, one has first to realise that they
have
> > been made, to analyse them and draw proper corrective conclusions.
>
> YES!!!!  Now - this needs to be applied to both the AO and its
> critics!

Why?  The crtics have performed this process - the AO hasn't!  when we get
to a level playing field, you might put that point again but not until then.

>
> > This critical approach is frowned upon by the AO which, for some strange
> > reason, views it as "negative" and verboten therefore.  The whole thing
about
> > negativity is that it exists from time to time and is an opportunity for
> > positivism.  To turn negative into positive is to grow.
>
> YES AGAIN!!!!  Wow we are actually in agreement.  I have seen a change
> in the AO here in the US over the last 10 years.  They are giving a
> long hard look at the "negative" and they are working on it.

Evidence?
<SNIP>
> > Trouble is, Dave - it makes the same mistakes over and over again and
keeps
> > getting up the noses of people who do not admit or acknowledge its
> > omnipotence and are not prepared to accept the crap!
>
> But this comes back to Baha'u'llah - He told us to obey the AO.  He
> told us to use consultation to settle our differences.  This is where
> I feel the critics of the AO have stumbled.  They ignore those
> commands of Baha'u'llah for one reason or another.

Consultation is a two sided process best not served by midnight visits and
threats of excommunication.
>
> > From the LA study group,
>
> US NSA - I agree that this was handled poorly - so why didn't the LA
> folks accept the decisions of the NSA and make a humble appeal to the
> UHJ for a consultationb on the matter?

The UHJ canned David Langness etc on the advice of the NSA.  There's nothing
to gain from dealing with an organ which has its mind made up for it and
acts on advice tendered without checking on the other side first.
<SNIP>
> > the expulsions,
>
> This is where the water gets cloudy.  Michael was making statements
> clearly in conflict with the Writings and he refused to obey the UHJ.
> Clearly the AO had no other choice.  Fred asked to be removed.  Alison
> made a clear attempt to establish a version of the Covenant that does
> not match the Covenant revealed by Baha'u'llah.  He case is not as
> clear cut as the other two.  I feel more consultation is required on
> this one.

This bullshit about Alison.  She was on a small e-mail list which most
people had never heard of - a list incidentally which had a fair number of
AO loyalists on it.  She's not the militant type and has not the charismatic
aura to attract a mass following - put another way, Alison plies her own
beliefs and is not interested in having others latch on to them.  She's not
a leader so talk of her establishing her own version of the Covenant in
opposition to Haifa is bull.  Some consultation prior to the event of her
expulsion might have helped but as there was none, talk of more is useless.

> > the spying on Nima,
>
> You know I think that was a mistake and should never have happened.

Just what Paul Dodenhoff stated he was instructed to do.

<SNIP>
> > this organisation has acted with the crassest of arrogance which
> > is born only in immense stupidity. IMO it has never once stopped to
consider
> > the fallout of what it has done.
>
> Maybe so, but the reaction the AO received was not exactly wise
> either.

What did it expect?  If you fall on people wielding knives they tend to
defend themselves.

> > None opf these people ar Covenant Breakers yet they are banned
effectively
> > from being within the ambit of that Covenant.
>
> Correct - if they want to rejoin the community they can do so.  There
> just needs to be some real consultation on these matters.

I don't think any of them want to rejoin the community as it now is.

> > None of them wants to change that Covenant.
>
> This is where I disagree.  Many on this list want to make changes that
> would not be Covenentially sound.  For example, the vocal insistance
> that women serve on the UHJ.

If the House determined that women could sit on it, would you regard that as
covenantly sound?  So what's wrong with people discussing the matter?
What's wrong with research on the matter?  what's wrong with people
proposing the adoption of different policies?  Isn't this what happens day
and daily in everyday life?  Do citizens in the US lose their voting rights
if they openly disagree with Government policy?  Are Catholics
excommunicated for stating that they think artificial birth control is OK?

<SNIP>
> > > One thing that I learned long ago - when there is a conflict, the two
> > > sides are both to blame.  I have yet to read anything from Juan, Fred,
> > > or anyone on "that side" to fess up to their own mistakes.
> >
> > When Juan re-declared his belief was he not fessing up to a mistake he
feels
> > he made?
>
> No.  He may have rediscovered his belief in Baha'u'llah, but he has
> not looked at his actions or his positions for the places where the
> original conflict occurred.  He has not, to my knowledge, approached
> the AO to consult on his situation.  He does not need to make a public
> confession - that is forbidden - but he does need to make ammends.

For what?  The AO shat on him and not the other way around.

> > As for Fred - he has been so anathematised and marginalised that
> > he dare not fess up to anything.
>
> No - he dug his own hole so deep that he can't see out of it anymore.

I wouldn't bet on that but with your hard attitude do you wonder why Fred
gets even more entrenched.  It's a cycle of violence - vioence begets
violence begets violence.

> > And there is the essential problem.  In
> > the absence of any form of meaningful dialogue between the contending
> > parties attitudes harden, mistrust grows, suspicion becomes overwhelming
> > and hatred develops on both sides.  In such an atmosphere it becomes
> > impossible to fess up because the perception is that the other side will
> > seize on and exploit it as evidence of weakness.  It's a vicious circle
> > which neither side can or will break for that is the ultimate weakness.
>
> That is the point of consultation.  If I were in a position where I
> had been removed from the rolls, I would find someone inside the AO to
> talk with.  I would make it clear that I wanted to consult about the
> matter, but I did not want it to turn into a blame-fest or a feeding
> frenzy.  I would hope to gain the confidence and trust of a member of
> the Institution of the Learned and work with them to seek a fair
> consultation with the LSA/NSA/RC/UHJ.  I would be careful _not_ to
> become entrenched lest I end up where so many are right now -
> radicalized and partisan.

So who initiates this consultation?  Don't you realise that in conflict the
side that initiates negotiation is the weaker side, acknowledging it is
wrong (to some degree or other) and giving the other moral legitimacy?

> > There are ways of breaking the circle but they require that both sides
are
> > willing to engage in a resolution of the conflict - sadly the AO isn't,
> > partly I believe because it cannot see a way to do that which will not
> > result in a massive loss of face for it!  And here lies the biggest
> > problem - given the absence of malice, the AO has manoeuvred itself into
> > this invidious position through its own stupidity and that self same
> > stupidity militates against its seeing a way out!
>
> Then isn't it up to the agrieved party to help find a way back without
> making the AO lose face?  Others have done it.  Trouble is that folks
> like Juan, Michael, Fred, and Alison all went on the PR attack
> afterwards.  They helped to create the atmosphere of distrust by
> seeking others to rally around them.  They sought sympathy from both
> Baha'is and non-Baha'is alike.  They, not the AO, created the us
> versus them mentality we see today.  That is a barrier.  Words like
> "liberal", "fundamentalist", "conservative", "mainstream", etc. were
> not coined by the AO.  They did not create that kind of division.
> That is a problem.

You're admitting the AO will lose face if it initiates consultation.  FYI
repeated efforts have been made to start that process on a "no
pre-conditions and without prejudice" basis.  They have all been rebuffed by
an AO which insists it will consult with people, it has demonised and
marginalised, on its terms and no other.  If people went public with this
it's because there is no alternative.

>
> > I confess that this conflict fascinates me.  Much as I am a staunch
> > supporter of the liberal cause I am not personally involved and have
> > developed a degree of  detatchment therefore.  What is most interesting
is
> > that the conflict is centred in the US which is to be the powerhouse of
> > Bahai development in the world.  Consequently the ultimate resolution
will
> > have profound significance for the BF for the next 2-300 years.
>
> I agree - this is a big test for our community.  The purpose of a test
> is to learn and grow through either success or failure.  Thius is
> America's test for sure.

To date the AO is failing badly.  Why not wait until things are really bad
when it will be crying out for consultation and action to get it out of the
pit.  Concessions will then be more readily forthcoming.

> > IMO at the moment the liberals have gained the high ground and have
> > undoubted strategic advantage, not so much from anything they have
> > themselves done but from the fact that the AO, having set the objective
of
> > silencing them, has signally failed to achieve that objective.  The ball
is
> > now in the liberal court.
>
> Agreed.  Now, if they turn to Baha'u'llah, understand that forgiveness
> and reconciliation is in order, and rejoin the fold, then I will say
> they have succeded.  If they continue to identify themselves as an
> alternate to the Baha'i Faith, then they will just end up being
> declared Covenant breakers and will become marginalized even further.

Forgiveness?  For what?  For acting in accordance with what is seen as
right?

Dave, I would personally and very sincerely welcome the award of the title
of CB - it would at least show that these people have guts even if they
don't have any sense.  But I don't even think they have guts.

One thing is apparent!  The AO embarked on this witch hunt without a clear
strategy, without having achievable aims, without assessing likely and
possible enemy reaction, without doing an assessment on repercussions
outside the Bahai world and without having an exit strategy if it all went
horribly wrong.  They threatened to nuke the opposition (the CB threat) and
succeeded in having them withdraw.  But the opposition didn't keep quiet so
the AO deployed it next weapon - the disenrollments.  Again the opposition
did not keep quiet.  So in June they threatened to nuke everybody and tried
it with Nima.  And everybody has told them to eff off!  The threat no longer
works.  And now the armoury is empty whilst the Wild Bunch is still running
rampant.

So tell me why should anybody initiate consultation with the AO?  To save
its face, to continue to allow this mob of duffers to remain in situ?  I
don't see any necessity to initiate any form of consultation with a corrupt
and tottering AO.  Best wait and see it totter some more!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Disowning and Shunning?
Date: Saturday, October 13, 2001 7:00 AM

"Matt Menge" <mspmenge@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.0110122218.2c1d3d3e@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<9q5gs8$mekaf$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> >
> > And did you believe those things implicitly (coming from Bahai sources)
or
> > cast about for corroborative evidence?
>
> I also asked a number of individuals in the area about the event
> regarding my now-Muslim friend (clearly I wouldn't be able to do that
> in Nima's case.)  There was actually some feeling that during feast
> there was a kind of nasty spirit in the air.  However, not even the
> bystanders would give me too much information.
>

And that atmosphere of secrecy is cultic and oppressive.  The essence of
justice is that it is open and manifestly right.  I think that is why Courts
are open to the people and judges have to justify their decisions.  If the
rationale behind a decision is manifest, the grounds for appeal, if any, are
clear and people know that the Court has tried to do the right thing.

> > That the NSA published two separate defamatory statements is
> > incontrovertible.  That one of them was published after an assault on
Nima
> > in which the assailants shouted "Covenant Breaker!" is well attested.
This
> > is an act of religious persecution perpetrated by bigots.  Might we
conclude
> > therefore that the NSA concurred with the actions of these bigots in
> > publishing the second defamatory statement?
>
> Yes, I've been slowly reading Glaysher's stuff but haven't found these
> reports yet.  By the way was Fred actually banned from certain
> newsgroups or was it just that he never said anything innocuous?
> Clearly banning him sounds extreme.

I have a great deal of admiration for Fred's principled stand and the work
he has put into assembling and maintaining his website.  As a source of
evidence it stands as an indictment of the AO and a measure of the shameful
tactics adopted by it.

> > When it comes to motive often there is no "smoking gun" but, as in this
> > case, there is a deal of circumstantial evidence which allows of a
> > reasonable conclusion that the NSA perpetrated a wrong.  As far as I am
> > aware and as is the usual practice in the AO, the NSA deigns not to
offer
> > any evidence or purview on the matter over and above its published
> > statement.  There is therefore no evidence offered by the defence and in
its
> > absence the jury has found the charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> I am not sure why the assemblies do not go into greater detail about
> such matters.  It seems a little strange, but I am not going to jump
> to conclusions yet.

Assemblies expect to be obeyed implicitly - they therefore feel no need to
justify their decisions.  Compare that to the way that Courts operate -
their decisions are to be obeyed but they are fully justified.  I prefer the
way that Courts operate.

>
> By the way, what is actually meant by assault?  Clearly physical
> contact was made but were there bruises for example?
>
> So you mean to say that the NSA said, "Yes, you did the right thing in
> assaulting Nima"?

Effectively yes!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - Terrorism & OFF- ONline Stalking
Date: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:17 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110120637.1ef2abca@posting.google.com...
> "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:<etivoSpUBHA.2140@cpimsnntpa02>...

>
> Yes - diversity is welcome.  Fred is not about diversity or unity.
> Fred is about attacking the very intitutions the Baha'u'llah commanded
> we humbly obey.  Unity in diversity is not like the free-love, warm
> and fuzy, go with the flow, new age unity.  Unity is based on the
> recognition that we are all servants of God, and that God has given us
> laws to follow for our own betterment.  Unity is submission to the
> Will of God.

Fred is attacking the corruption that is the business of the AO - he is not
attacking the institutions, he is attacking the filth that spews from in a
total perversion of what Bahaism is about.  And that, Dave, is where the
zero growth and stagnation is founded.

As I've said before - if Fred is negative, then turn that something negative
into something positive by kicking ass in the AO.

Dermod.

>
> > As a matter of fact I more often disagree with his positions than I
agree but
> > Baha'u'llah states that all who follow him are on the Crimson Ark.
>
> I would like that reference for that.  I would like to read it in
> context.  Baha'u'llah clearly said that belief was not enough to be a
> follower of His.  One had to obey (submit) to His Will as expressed by
> His laws and exhortations.
>
> > How in the world can we expect the peoples of the world to live in peace
and
> > harmony with each other when we Baha'is reject fellow Baha'is who
disagree
> > with us.
>
> Because the Baha'i Faith has the integrity to remove from its
> membership a person who actively seeks to cause disruption.
>
> The Baha'i Faith is not the Society for Group Hugs, it is not a place
> for all and sundry to peddle their own twisted view of Baha'u'llah's
> Revelation.
>
> From Baha'u'llah::
>
> This is not a Cause which may be made a plaything for your idle
> fancies, nor is it a field for the foolish and faint of heart. By God,
> this is the arena of insight and detachment, of vision and upliftment,
> where none may spur on their chargers save the valiant horsemen of the
> Merciful, who have severed all attachment to the world of being.
> These, truly, are they that render God victorious on earth, and are
> the dawning-places of His sovereign might amidst mankind.
>
> -- Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas paragraph 178
>
> Peace,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Attn Dermod - Re Haifa's "monitors"
Date: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:13 PM

"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:9rckn0$sjbmq$2@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9rbr91$sa5qr$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Sorry Fred - no names!
>
> Well, any guesses? Anybody we know around here?

My understanding is that they are in a bunker buried deep under Mount
Carmel near Haifa and they live in constant fear of attack.  The
bunkers are designed to resist a dead hit by a rocket propelled Fred
Glaysher - a variant that is considered more deadly than the Fred
Glaysher Mk 1 Master of Spam.

To protect these valued assets who serve a daily report on the
activities on TRB to the House members over breakfast - an event that
makes breakfast the worst meal of the day - counter-Glaysher weapons
have been deployed across the Internet. These include the Fiorito
Close In Weapons System, the Medium Range Kohli and the Rolling
Articulated Matt Menge.

We can't provide the names of the monitors for security reasons - that
and the fact that they are regularly rotated for the strain of having
to listen to the absolute filth and drivel on TRB is considered too
hazardous - and that's just the guy who monitors the fundies.  Word
has it that several have died from boredom, as well - something we can
all empathise with.

The ones in charge of the others, those faced with daily exposure to
the  "covenantly challenging" infection, for which there is no known
cure, are a particularly sad case.  A number have gone over the hill,
having succumbed to the infection; others are reported to have ended
their days in strait jackets.  I tell you, Fred, you gotta take your
hat off to these guys.

Due to their courage and devotion to duty, the Bahai World is a safer
place for your kids to be brought up as fundamentalists!!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: New Thread - Deception and Unity
Date: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:57 AM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xZLF7.61853$R9.16594346@typhoon.we.rr.com...

Hi Robert,

> If your expeience is that the entry of numbers of Persians into your
> community constituted an invasion, then the problem was yours. These
> Persians did not leave their native land with any degree of
happiness, or
> much choice. Many of them lived for long periods of time in those
same
> Pakistani refugee camps you now see populated with Afghans.
(Afghistanis?
> Afghanis?). I know Baha'is who went through them.

None of these superior fundie asses were refugees - let's get that
straight!  The refugee families that came were exemplary in their
willingness to take a back seat and learn about the society they had
come to live in.  That is what distinguishes the real human being from
the pseudo one.  As the old proverb says "When in Rome ..."  I have no
problem with people who come from afar and note the differences
between their culture and mine.  But I'll be damned if I'm going to
accept some arrogant twat coming here and telling me that his culture
is superior to mine and that I (and the rest of the nation) must
change to accord with his viewpoint.  Better than him have been
observed floating, face down, in Belfast Lough!

> Those Persians who you feel failed to properly respect your own
native
> customs were not pioneering, they were escaping. That influx
represented a
> remarkable opportunity for your two peoples to learn from each
other.
> Represents still, just not for you personally.

One of the best Persians who was here - not a refugee - developed one
of the best Belfast accents I have heard and learned to enjoy and
participate in the robust self deprecatory humour that is at the heart
of local lifestyle.  He didn't try to tell anybody that Persian
culture was inherently superior - he observed and learned that our
culture suited us and that if he bothered to immerse himself in it
(whilst retaining his own identity) people stopped looking upon as a
foreigner (while still trying to learn of his culture) and fully
accepted him into the community as an equal partner - emphasis on
"equal."  He brought people into the BF - including me.  The superior
types didn't because at the core of them was neither love nor respect
for the natives and their culture.

> Nice to see how the children
> of an Irish-Persian marriage would turn out. Perhaps, they'd put
their books
> on the floor, but kiss them first?

Depends a lot on which side is emphasised.  Some are brought up within
the indigeneous culture (which is the one they live in) with due
respect and regard for the other.  Some (a minority) have been
inculcated with the dreadful superiority complex!  Guess which ones I
prefer!  Guess which ones will be most accepted by the rest of the
natives!

> Being Irish is terrific, although you personally can't take much
credit for
> that, but I seem to recall something along the lines of "Glory
rather in
> this, that you love mankind."

Being Irish is so terrific that over 70 million people outside of the
island claim Irish ancestry!  It's quite obvious that the Irish "love"
mankind!

Dermod.

> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9rvl6g$uooi7$5@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:vm7E7.42583$R9.11672491@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > You ask the wrong question, impose the wrong answers.
> > >
> > > Ask any Baha'i who is at all active in his/her community, and
you
> > will get
> > > the answer that the administrative order functions in direct
> > proportion to
> > > the level of functioning of the community of which it is an
integral
> > part.
> > > It is maturing as the constituent members mature both in terms
of
> > experience
> > > and wisdom.
> >
> > I asked and did get this answer as one might expect from those
taught
> > to believe in the efficacy of the AO.  OTOH as one who has
suffered
> > for many years from the same AO I disagree.  For those years Mrs
> > Reaper assiduously carried out her administrative duties on days
and
> > nights.  Much administration but no practical gains - the
community
> > was moribund but the administrative burden remained the same.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > > I have seen what can happen
> > > when someone enters the Baha'i Faith in a tiny community, gets
> > elected to
> > > the Spiritual Assembly, and then reveals severe emotional or
mental
> > > problems. Drugs, alcohol, sex, you name it,  you will find
> > communitys
> > > struggling with all these problems, and when you only have ten
or
> > twenty
> > > Baha'is in a community, the problems can seem overwhelming.
> > Sometimes, they
> > > ARE overwhelming.
> >
> > They had a great way of dealing with "problem" Bahais here - they
> > removed them from the community.
> >
> > >
> > > Years ago I moved into a community that had lost its LSA. The
> > chairman had
> > > died of cirhossis, one teenaged Baha'i had died of a dirty
needle,
> > another
> > > smoked pot, and one member was a manic-depressive. Wow. The
first
> > time I
> > > went to visit one family, the surviving spouse slammed the door
in
> > my face.
> > > Shame.
> > >
> > > We got over all that: the manic-depressive was hospitalized; the
pot
> > smoker
> > > and I said 500 Removers of Difficulty, and he flushed the pot
down
> > the
> > > toilet, after which he borrowed some money to pay for it; he
helped
> > his
> > > younger brother clean himself up, and we soon had a healthy
> > community.
> > > Things change. Tests happen.
> >
> > People with problems like that know better than to join the Bahai
> > community here and if, by any chance, they slip through the net
they
> > are soon alienated into leaving.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > > The Baha'i Faith is in its infancy, and is changing rapidly.
What
> > was true
> > > of a community yesterday - local or national - is not going to
be
> > true
> > > today. There have been migrations of Persian Baha'is into many
> > communities,
> > > large numbers of racial, cultural and "other" minorities have
> > entered the
> > > Faith in some areas, and numerical stagnation in others.
> >
> > One of the greatest handicaps the Bahai community has had here was
the
> > influx of Persians who tried to mould the community into a little
> > Persia - like the gomer who tried to hit on me for placing Bahai
books
> > on the floor.  Now Persians may indicate disrespect for a book by
> > putting it on the floor but the Irish put a book on the floor if
> > that's the most convenient place to put it.
> >
> > The imposition of an alien culture does little to enhance the
appeal
> > to an indigeneous population which has had its fill of being
imposed
> > upon and wishes to emphasise its own identity. If Bahais were
serious
> > about the intent to sell their faith here they would advise those
> > Persians that they are seriously over represented in the community
and
> > ought either to take a back seat or learn and adopt Irish ways.
It
> > was a very distinctive Irish Christianity that made this island
one of
> > saints and scholars.  Bahai pioneers have to adapt themselves and
the
> > Faith they present to the indigeneous culture if they wish to make
an
> > impact.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > No pain, no gain.
> >
> > Loadsa pain and still no gain.  the immature, embryonic argument
has
> > been around too long as an excuse!
> > --
> > As ever,
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> > "In God We Trust - All others pay Cash!"
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:03 AM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0111050901.6ce41b73@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > How well inform are you of what the UHJ is doing now, or as to
what is
> > ongoing?  Your statements below cannot be verified by you or me in
any
> > manner, and you know it.
>
> ... and neither can the statement that they are engaged in some kind
> of ongoing campaign of oppression be verified in any way.
>
> My point stands.

With regard to the number and nature of incidents as described on
Fred's site and elsewhere -

Once is happenstance,
Twice is coincidence,
But the third time?  That's ENEMY ACTION!

--
As ever,

Dermod.

"In God We Trust - All others pay Cash!"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:58 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0111071202.790ca5cb@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > With regard to the number and nature of incidents as described on
> > Fred's site and elsewhere -
> >
> > Once is happenstance,
> > Twice is coincidence,
> > But the third time?  That's ENEMY ACTION!
>
> Look, removal of ones membership is a legitimate sanction in the
> Faith.  If it is used then why is the assumption made that it should
> not be used?  Should we not use punitive measures because they may
> hurt someone?

Don't isolate it into one specific area!  Fred's site contains a lot
of gems apart from Alison and Micheal.  The LA group, the termination
of Dialogue, Juan's midnight roasting, the denunciation of Modest
Proposal, the Bahai Intelligence Agency (some contradiction in this,
surely!)surveillance of Nima, Paul Dodenhoff's disclosure on being
ordered to spy on BIGS, Albuquerque LSA, etc., all, when grouped
together, form a pattern which readily slips into my Three Times Rule.
There is other minor but corroboratory circumstantial evidence as
well.

Consider, for example, the Corps of ABMs for Protection and the
Counsellors.  They protect the faith from its enemies.  But what
enemies are they deployed against?  How many ABMs or Counsellors have
fallen in battle whilst engaged in combat here against the spiritually
corrosive?  Not a one!  Why?  Because they do not battle the external
enemies of the Faith.  Theirs is a predatory battle against the
internal enemy.  And that circumstantially supports the hypothesis
that the BIGS are controlled as to the expression of their views by
the Thought Police.  If Protection is not practised on the Internet by
active defence of the Faith on the open fora by the institution of the
learned (some mistake here, surely!) what the hell are these gomers
engaged in?

You come here as an earnest BIGs to defend and uphold the dignity of
the Faith.  You get mauled every day by the said spiritually
corrosive.  What support do you get?  Is the heavy artillery of the
Consellors deployed to support you?  Are there squadrons of heavily
armoured ABMs charging the foe?  No feckin' way!  You're the poor
grunt in the foxhole with shit raining down on him day and daily (just
like the Taleban).  And what are the REMF Counsellors and ABMs doing?
They're spying on your and everybody's else's E-mail!  And do these
guys give one tinker's fart about what you have to endure, are they
concerned that their Faith is hacked and slashed here, these guys
sworn to protect it?  Only slightly but only if it seems you are about
to be corroded!
--
As ever,

Dermod.

"In God We Trust - All others pay Cash!"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Why I Don't Respond to bahai Fundamentalists
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:48 AM

"Brian Walker" <bfwalker@net-yan.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91587055AE0D7bfwalkernetyancom@202.14.67.242...
> "Freethought110" <freethought110@bohemian.org> wrote in
> news:9spt1n$r1r$1@perki.connect.com.au:

Hi Brian,

> > Thanks for the input. I think you've nailed it (no pun intended).
The
> > BIGS here don't seem to realize how much their shennanigans with
Fred
> > makes them look like more and more like mobs of enraged fanatics
on a
> > blood lust, kind of like those mobs of Shi'ites in Iran who
incited by
> > the local mullah would go on a rampage against defenseless Babis
or
> > Baha'is.
>
> Greetings - is it you Nima? I have been offline for a while ....

Good to see you back!  And yes - it is Nima - off on the rampage again
with mobs of enraged liberals .... !

>
> BIGS in general ignore Fred. He is worthy of that. Perhaps a few
will be
> excited by him, but so what? He does irritate a lot.

If most BIGS avoid Fred how come thjere is such antipathy against him?
Is it because his web site is popular - perhaps more popular than the
Edmonton Local Bahais' Website and Floral Garden?

> To equate this with fundamentalist mobs rampaging is a bit arch,
don't you
> think?

Well we literally don't have mobs but some of those who rant against
Fred display certain mob tendencies and sentiments.

--
As ever,

Dermod.

"The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth - if that's alright with the rest of
you!"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Dr. Maneck's  New Censorship Technique
Date: Friday, November 23, 2001 6:42 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011122033233.08228.00001930@mb-md.aol.com...
<SNIP>
> So why did I change sides? Well, like Karen, I became increasingly
aware of how
> much the Faith meant to me, and awareness which began to grow as I
took
> seriously Baha'u'llah's admonition to read the Writings every
morning and
> evening. It was the only act of firmness in the Covenant I felt
capable of at
> the time. And as I began to do that, my desire for reconcilation
began to grow.
> But what I began to realize is that the people I was associating
with did not
> want reconciliation, they were locked into a battle with the
administration and
> what they wanted most was to win.

Here lieth the ultimate truth - here is the crux of fundamentalism.
It is black and white, right or wrong failing to recognise that life
is not that simple or clear-cut.  Rather than perceiving a situation
where there are differences to be resolved, the fundamentalist mindset
sees these differences as a challenge to the revealed truth.  But the
revealed truth is not that clear - that individual interpretation is
not merely possible but permitted is symptomatic of this assertion.
Something less antagonistic is needed here - something that suggests
that the causes of contention need to be resolved, tolerated and
reconciled rather than seen as a means to escalate the contention into
conflict.

This is the process of reconciliation you refer to but if it is to
work it requires compromise on all sides.  The classic build-up to
conflict sees both sides girding their loins and becoming more
antagonistic to the other.  Sooner or later this explodes into
violence - one side attacks, the other retaliates and the spiral
continues.  Who started it is never clear yet unless BOTH are
determined to stop, it will continue.

At its simplest the current Bahai War is about authority and
inclusion.  The House demands its authority be absolute up to and
including a rigid interpretation of and adherence to the COVENANT.
Liberals dispute both the the wisdom of this (to the mission of
winning converts) and the House's right to insist on it.  They believe
the Covenant is inclusive of wide and varying interpretation, they
therefore have a right to belong to the community if they so wish and
the House has no right to exclude them.  At this point in time there
is no indication that either side is prepared to compromise - the
prospect is continuing internecine warfare which will flare up and
down from time to time in varying degrees of intensity.  That
continuing conflict will sap the energy and vitality and the ability
of the BF to proceed.  Indeed the only loser in the conflict is the
BF - for the liberals at no cost to themselves can continue the
struggle indefinitely.  The solution is obvious yet will not be
applied!

You changed sides in this conflict!  You reconciled yourself with
those who are antithetical to everything you once believed in!  You
sold your integrity and have paid a gruesome price for so doing and
not mainly from those whose cause you once shared!  Far from effecting
reconciliation, apart from your own, your defection effectively
hardened battlelines and attitudes - you, wittingly or not, escalated
the conflict and brought a lasting opprobrium upon your own head.  And
what you joined is an organisation that is "Ruhi-ising" the entire
community - the Catechism of the Bahai Faith for all to learn by heart
and recite by rote.  The Institutions don't hate you - they have
nothing but contempt for you - for you hadn't the guts to plough your
own furrow but submitted and went under the yoke.

I don't need to tell you that fundamentalist revolutions never succeed
in the long run - the onward march of liberalism has never been
repulsed.  But fundamentalism, because it suppresses human creativity,
can do untold damage to its victims of whom you are one!

The essence of the Bahai Revelation is that one does RIGHT, not
because some authority orders you to do it but because it is the right
thing to do.  Bahaism is of the spirit and the heart and not the
institution and its authority.  That is why the Covenant ought to be a
loose binding that it can inspire but never restrict the surge of
creativity that is the human yearning.  When it becomes a matter of
authority it has failed and the world will disregard it as it advances
way beyond the limited vision that is set in concrete in Haifa.  The
Bahai spirit - the real Bahai spirit - is in the many people who work
with my autistic kid and all the other sick and disabled kids
throughout the world.  Not a one of them is Bahai - not a one would
believe that a better world will result from the machinations of
assemblies or Haifan folks fulminating about E-mails.

I spent twenty years of guilt wondering if I did right to leave the
Bahai Faith for, seemingly, I was the only one who saw its wasted
purpose and potential for corruption.  When I came to the Internet,
especially when Alison was canned before mine own eyes, I knew I was
right!  To have belonged to this apparat would have sapped every
vestige of self respect and deeply held belief that I ever had - I
would have had to betray myself to belong to it.  I have seen Bahais
support corruption in the Assembly when every sinew of their being
cried out against it - for the sake of unity and the upholding of
authority in the institutions.  But that's why I know what you're
going through!  And at the end of the day, that's why I feel sorry for
you!

This current Bahai Faith will fail - but the spirit of the Revelation
is alive, well and prospering throughout the world.  It will improve
the lot of mankind in due course and at that time the rump of Haifans
will have put the "For Sale" sign up on those grandiose terraces.  Who
knows but that Fred will negotiate the sale for a reasonable
commission!

Dermod.
--

"The Meek shall inherit The Earth - if that's alright with the rest of
you!"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Conference Call - Reiterated - Conference Call - Reiterated - Conference Call - Reiterated - Conference Call - Reiterated -
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2001 6:32 PM

"Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.0111280821.63eabb5f@posting.google.com...
 Hi Milissa,

<SNIP>
> So, if anyone on this list is going to be at Green Acre, give me a
> buzz and lets see if we can meet up.  I would really like to have
> someone to talk to about these things, but this list gets too hot
> sometimes plus my husband I think is weary of me going on and on
about
> stuff.

There are places I plan to go and Green Acre ain't one of them, sadly.
As for hubby - well, Mrs Reaper used to get weary of it too but she
has now seen the light and agrees with me more and more. So keep on
putting pressure on him and he might well start to see the light as
well!

<SNIP>
> Fred, we are not going to get anywhere at all until *both* sides can
> genuinely give the other credit for being decent human beings.  This
> means that liberals must accept that people in the AO are not demons
> out to steal their civil rights and those in the AO will have to get
> thicker skin and not confuse criticism of them as criticism of the
> Covenant.

Now here's the problem - neither side trusts the other so, if you're
going to have this conference you need a few confidence building
exercises beforehand.

<SNIP>
>
> I agree and would just reiterate that both sides need to do this.
> Dave, do you really think such a conference could happen?  What
> protection would someone attending have from administrative
sanctions?
>  See, my thinking at this moment is that the AO would perceive it as
> negative campaigning or some type of internal opposition.  Until I
> could feel really secure that this conference could take place in
> absolute freedom with no possibility of AO backlash, I don't think I
> or lots of other people would attend. Please don't get offended
Dave,
> but this is really the perception I have, and I am sorry to have to
> say it.  And this is very sad..........

Now why in a religion that preaches "consultation" would you or
anybody fear retaliation for voicing your views?  And incidentally,
that's one of the reasons that this conference will not take place at
this time for the AO perceives no self interest in participating.  It
has the community deluded into believing that all is well and growth
is taking place, albeit slowly, and would be greater were it not that
non-BIGS are too materialistic to join.

The dear lady recently stated in another place, that, last year the
number of deaths exceeded the number of enrollments in the BIGS
community in the US.  Given that we also know that some 50% of new
enrollments withdraw within two years, the Bahai population is
therefore now in decline and that rate of decline will increase as the
baby boomers age.

Consequent on this decline in numbers will be a decrease in dollars
flowing to Wilmette and Haifa, which latter may well sqeeze the funds
of the former even further.  News of numerical successes in outer
Mongolia may be good for morale but not for the coffers as Mongolians,
lacking the material benefits of the US, are not fruitful prospects
for financial squeezing.  I hear many tales of financial hardship in
the Bahai communities throughout the Occident - I think there will be
more of them.

I think you'll get your conference when the decline in numbers and
finance becomes terminal.  Whether the AO will initiate it or whether
the AO will be overwhelmed by irate duped BIGS, I wouldn't like to
forecast but I hope to be around to see it all unfold!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
To: "Fred Glaysher" <FG@hotmail.com>
Subject: Web site
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:24 PM

Fred,

Messages as requested.

as ever,

Dermod

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011122033233.08228.00001930@mb-md.aol.com...
<SNIP>
> So why did I change sides? Well, like Karen, I became increasingly
aware of how
> much the Faith meant to me, and awareness which began to grow as I
took
> seriously Baha'u'llah's admonition to read the Writings every
morning and
> evening. It was the only act of firmness in the Covenant I felt
capable of at
> the time. And as I began to do that, my desire for reconcilation
began to grow.
> But what I began to realize is that the people I was associating
with did not
> want reconciliation, they were locked into a battle with the
administration and
> what they wanted most was to win.

Here lieth the ultimate truth - here is the crux of fundamentalism.
It is black and white, right or wrong failing to recognise that life
is not that simple or clear-cut.  Rather than perceiving a situation
where there are differences to be resolved, the fundamentalist mindset
sees these differences as a challenge to the revealed truth.  But the
revealed truth is not that clear - that individual interpretation is
not merely possible but permitted is symptomatic of this assertion.
Something less antagonistic is needed here - something that suggests
that the causes of contention need to be resolved, tolerated and
reconciled rather than seen as a means to escalate the contention into
conflict.

This is the process of reconciliation you refer to but if it is to
work it requires compromise on all sides.  The classic build-up to
conflict sees both sides girding their loins and becoming more
antagonistic to the other.  Sooner or later this explodes into
violence - one side attacks, the other retaliates and the spiral
continues.  Who started it is never clear yet unless BOTH are
determined to stop, it will continue.

At its simplest the current Bahai War is about authority and
inclusion.  The House demands its authority be absolute up to and
including a rigid interpretation of and adherence to the COVENANT.
Liberals dispute both the the wisdom of this (to the mission of
winning converts) and the House's right to insist on it.  They believe
the Covenant is inclusive of wide and varying interpretation, they
therefore have a right to belong to the community if they so wish and
the House has no right to exclude them.  At this point in time there
is no indication that either side is prepared to compromise - the
prospect is continuing internecine warfare which will flare up and
down from time to time in varying degrees of intensity.  That
continuing conflict will sap the energy and vitality and the ability
of the BF to proceed.  Indeed the only loser in the conflict is the
BF - for the liberals at no cost to themselves can continue the
struggle indefinitely.  The solution is obvious yet will not be
applied!

You changed sides in this conflict!  You reconciled yourself with
those who are antithetical to everything you once believed in!  You
sold your integrity and have paid a gruesome price for so doing and
not mainly from those whose cause you once shared!  Far from effecting
reconciliation, apart from your own, your defection effectively
hardened battlelines and attitudes - you, wittingly or not, escalated
the conflict and brought a lasting opprobrium upon your own head.  And
what you joined is an organisation that is "Ruhi-ising" the entire
community - the Catechism of the Bahai Faith for all to learn by heart
and recite by rote.  The Institutions don't hate you - they have
nothing but contempt for you - for you hadn't the guts to plough your
own furrow but submitted and went under the yoke.

I don't need to tell you that fundamentalist revolutions never succeed
in the long run - the onward march of liberalism has never been
repulsed.  But fundamentalism, because it suppresses human creativity,
can do untold damage to its victims of whom you are one!

The essence of the Bahai Revelation is that one does RIGHT, not
because some authority orders you to do it but because it is the right
thing to do.  Bahaism is of the spirit and the heart and not the
institution and its authority.  That is why the Covenant ought to be a
loose binding that it can inspire but never restrict the surge of
creativity that is the human yearning.  When it becomes a matter of
authority it has failed and the world will disregard it as it advances
way beyond the limited vision that is set in concrete in Haifa.  The
Bahai spirit - the real Bahai spirit - is in the many people who work
with my autistic kid and all the other sick and disabled kids
throughout the world.  Not a one of them is Bahai - not a one would
believe that a better world will result from the machinations of
assemblies or Haifan folks fulminating about E-mails.

I spent twenty years of guilt wondering if I did right to leave the
Bahai Faith for, seemingly, I was the only one who saw its wasted
purpose and potential for corruption.  When I came to the Internet,
especially when Alison was canned before mine own eyes, I knew I was
right!  To have belonged to this apparat would have sapped every
vestige of self respect and deeply held belief that I ever had - I
would have had to betray myself to belong to it.  I have seen Bahais
support corruption in the Assembly when every sinew of their being
cried out against it - for the sake of unity and the upholding of
authority in the institutions.  But that's why I know what you're
going through!  And at the end of the day, that's why I feel sorry for
you!

This current Bahai Faith will fail - but the spirit of the Revelation
is alive, well and prospering throughout the world.  It will improve
the lot of mankind in due course and at that time the rump of Haifans
will have put the "For Sale" sign up on those grandiose terraces.  Who
knows but that Fred will negotiate the sale for a reasonable
commission!

Dermod.
-

"The Meek shall inherit The Earth - if that's alright with the rest of
you!"

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011125023334.27459.00002727@mb-fo.aol.com...
> >The
> >Bahai spirit - the real Bahai spirit - is in the many people who
work
> >with my autistic kid and all the other sick and disabled kids
> >throughout the world.  Not a one of them is Bahai -
>
> You think only non-Baha'is care for autistic kids?

Did I say that?  I don't think so!

>I cared for one for over three years.

So now you know a little of what I go through each day.  Bravo!

Is that all you could find to contend with?

Splendid!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 4:52 PM

"Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.0112041122.42fd24fb@posting.google.com...
> Fred--
>
> Why don't you just write to them and tell them they misunderstood
your
> request and asked to be reinstated?
>
> WHY don't you?
>
> The Faith has enough problems without you making some up or causing
> them.
>
> Please attempt to rectify this situation with them before you
subject
> us on the list to another round of regurgiposts.  You haven't even
> written to them to tell them they misunderstood, have you?  You
> haven't even tried to resolve this.  If, after contacting them to
> explain the misunderstanding, they refuse to reinstate you, then you
> might actually have a point.  At this time, you don't.

Au contraire, Milissa!  If National has disenrolled Fred the onus is
on it to inform him of that fact, not Dave F, Pat K, Tony Blair, David
Trimble or Uncle Andy!  It seems that anybody who contacted Wilmette
was told that Fred had been cut off, if not in his prime then surely
in some other state of which he is, equally, unaware!  But nobody at
National has deigned to tell Fred or, pace Dave F. etc., confirm that
he has been disenrolled.  When I escaped the clutches, the UK National
wrote to confirm my name had been taken off the rolls!  maybe Wilmette
could follow suit.  Unless/until it does I'm all for Fred claiming to
be a BIGS of the finest kind!

What I glean from this is that Wilmette is inhabited by a flock of
clucking chickens (note I checked the spelling to avert
unpleasantries) who haven't the guts to face up to Fred and tell him
that they have given him the heave!  Gutless, spineless fundie loonies
with a great big yellowstain where the backbone ought to be and you
want to go back and join them!  Give us a break - you got more to you
than that!

As ever,

Dermod.

> "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:<9ufqrp$7ou3o$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing
list."
> >
> >
> > In 1996 my request to the circulation department for the American
Bahai,
> > repeated twice and perhaps a third time, read, "Please remove my
name and
> > address from your mailing list." I had torn off the preprinted
address
> > change label regularly published on the back page of the American
Bahai and
> > mailed it into the address given for subscription changes.
> >
> > I asked for nothing other than my name and address to be removed
from the
> > mailing list--no gloss, no explanation, no complaint, no threat,
etc....
> > Dermod Ryder's speculation that willingness to receive the
American Bahai
> > has become compulsory should give pause....
> >
> > Again, note well, I used the address on the back of the American
Bahai given
> > specifically for handling subscription addresses. I did not write
the nsa,
> > its secretary, etc. My communication was limited to the simplest
of
> > requests: remove my name and address from your mailing list. Not a
word or
> > suggestion about withdrawing from the Bahai Faith, nor any
criticism of it
> > whatsoever, real nor implied. I conveyed my wishes to the proper
address, as
> > announced in the American Bahai itself. That I received a response
back from
> > an entirely different address speaks volumes, as they say. After
six years,
> > I believe the time is now right to release it publicly. I've
scanned the
> > letter so others might read the original.
> >
> > I am not about to accept the slander and backbiting of fanatics
and
> > fundamentalists nor allow them to provoke me into one action or
another. I
> > prefer the facts: Again, I declared my belief in Baha'u'llah in
1976 and
> > notified the nsa, who sent me back the declaration card available
on my
> > homepage. I have never notified them otherwise. They, as
distinguished from
> > liars and sycophants online, have never notified me to the
contrary. Scanned
> > orignials at
https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/nsa1996.htm
> >
> > The other two letters were related to the Detroit local spiritual
assembly
> > and its junk mail.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:21 AM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1geP7.16531$PQ2.2028628@typhoon.socal.rr.com...

Robert,
>
> How do you know that Mr. Glaysher has not been contacted, or that
there was
> not a legitimate attempt to contact him?

Because nobody has ever produced a letter from National telling him
that he had been disenrolled.  There is other corroborative
circumstantial evidence that such a letter was never sent.

The house wrote to a number of people detailing why Alison Marshall
was expelled yet never explained this to her - in Michael's case it
said more to his wife than to him.

As to a letter from an ABM - one assumes that this was a request for a
meeting.  After all only National and not an ABM can expell one from
membership!

As ever,

Dermod.

> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9ujggi$915ub$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
> > news:df0d6959.0112041122.42fd24fb@posting.google.com...
> > > Fred--
> > >
> > > Why don't you just write to them and tell them they
misunderstood
> > your
> > > request and asked to be reinstated?
> > >
> > > WHY don't you?
> > >
> > > The Faith has enough problems without you making some up or
causing
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Please attempt to rectify this situation with them before you
> > subject
> > > us on the list to another round of regurgiposts.  You haven't
even
> > > written to them to tell them they misunderstood, have you?  You
> > > haven't even tried to resolve this.  If, after contacting them
to
> > > explain the misunderstanding, they refuse to reinstate you, then
you
> > > might actually have a point.  At this time, you don't.
> >
> > Au contraire, Milissa!  If National has disenrolled Fred the onus
is
> > on it to inform him of that fact, not Dave F, Pat K, Tony Blair,
David
> > Trimble or Uncle Andy!  It seems that anybody who contacted
Wilmette
> > was told that Fred had been cut off, if not in his prime then
surely
> > in some other state of which he is, equally, unaware!  But nobody
at
> > National has deigned to tell Fred or, pace Dave F. etc., confirm
that
> > he has been disenrolled.  When I escaped the clutches, the UK
National
> > wrote to confirm my name had been taken off the rolls!  maybe
Wilmette
> > could follow suit.  Unless/until it does I'm all for Fred claiming
to
> > be a BIGS of the finest kind!
> >
> > What I glean from this is that Wilmette is inhabited by a flock of
> > clucking chickens (note I checked the spelling to avert
> > unpleasantries) who haven't the guts to face up to Fred and tell
him
> > that they have given him the heave!  Gutless, spineless fundie
loonies
> > with a great big yellowstain where the backbone ought to be and
you
> > want to go back and join them!  Give us a break - you got more to
you
> > than that!
> >
> > As ever,
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> > > "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
> > <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9ufqrp$7ou3o$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > Bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing
> > list."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In 1996 my request to the circulation department for the
American
> > Bahai,
> > > > repeated twice and perhaps a third time, read, "Please remove
my
> > name and
> > > > address from your mailing list." I had torn off the preprinted
> > address
> > > > change label regularly published on the back page of the
American
> > Bahai and
> > > > mailed it into the address given for subscription changes.
> > > >
> > > > I asked for nothing other than my name and address to be
removed
> > from the
> > > > mailing list--no gloss, no explanation, no complaint, no
threat,
> > etc....
> > > > Dermod Ryder's speculation that willingness to receive the
> > American Bahai
> > > > has become compulsory should give pause....
> > > >
> > > > Again, note well, I used the address on the back of the
American
> > Bahai given
> > > > specifically for handling subscription addresses. I did not
write
> > the nsa,
> > > > its secretary, etc. My communication was limited to the
simplest
> > of
> > > > requests: remove my name and address from your mailing list.
Not a
> > word or
> > > > suggestion about withdrawing from the Bahai Faith, nor any
> > criticism of it
> > > > whatsoever, real nor implied. I conveyed my wishes to the
proper
> > address, as
> > > > announced in the American Bahai itself. That I received a
response
> > back from
> > > > an entirely different address speaks volumes, as they say.
After
> > six years,
> > > > I believe the time is now right to release it publicly. I've
> > scanned the
> > > > letter so others might read the original.
> > > >
> > > > I am not about to accept the slander and backbiting of
fanatics
> > and
> > > > fundamentalists nor allow them to provoke me into one action
or
> > another. I
> > > > prefer the facts: Again, I declared my belief in Baha'u'llah
in
> > 1976 and
> > > > notified the nsa, who sent me back the declaration card
available
> > on my
> > > > homepage. I have never notified them otherwise. They, as
> > distinguished from
> > > > liars and sycophants online, have never notified me to the
> > contrary. Scanned
> > > > orignials at
> > https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/nsa1996.htm
> > > >
> > > > The other two letters were related to the Detroit local
spiritual
> > assembly
> > > > and its junk mail.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 7:12 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112051332.94f6844@posting.google.com...
> Dermod,
>
> Why should they contact Fred if his letter was a withdrawl request?
> They got his first letter.  Wrote to him to clarify the situation.
> Fred sent a letter that said, in effect - just do it.  So they did
it.
>  No need to contact him further - case closed.  Now if Fred was
> misunderstood and he want to be a member of the Baha'i community
it's
> up to him now.

Dave,

He asked to be removed from the Mailing Lists.  If in AOnion that is
determined to be a withdrawal - fine!  But where is that stated in a
policy directive that predates Fred's letter (Ex post facto law is not
good law) that he either knew or could be deemed to have known that
his request to be withdrawn from the mailing list was synonomous with
a request to withdraw?

I don't dispute that Fred has been disenrolled or that National has
the authority so to do.  What is incredible is that rather than have
the guts to stand up and tell him it has done this, it slinks in a
corner, informs you and waits for you to tell Fred whilst maintaining
silence.  At the same time it hopes to sell the story that Fred
withdrew of his own accord.  It is an absolute shambles - the national
body which is supposed to be a central authority is hunkered down and
keeping quiet about a relatively simple matter which could be cleared
up with a five minute letter.

Do you wonder why I am sitting here laughing at this farce which
purports to be the governance of the future? You elect these jokers to
office year in and year out without even a cursory glance at the
shambles they create amid a falling membership.

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 7:58 PM

"Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.0112051012.51818abe@posting.google.com...
Hi Milissa,
>
> Fred is not being honest with you.  Just because the AO has some
liars
> in it, does not automatically make Fred correct.
>
> Fred claims he was unjustly removed from the rolls, while to others
it
> appears that the NSA misunderstood his request.  Dermod, ask Fred
for
> proof that he wrote clarifying the misunderstanding and asked to be
> reinstated. Demand the proof.  I don't think he can. If he can prove
> he wrote such a letter and THEN was told off by the NSA, I would
agree
> with your assessment Dermod.  But Fred has to prove it and he hasn't
> yet.

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 write
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, I agree that the AO has done some things that are bad.  This
> just isn't one of them.  Please Dermod, I don't want to have a round
> with you like I did Nima.  I'm still hurting over that.

It's only an Internet forum - don't take it so seriously!  You can't
be expelled or otherwise harmed for what you say in a place like this
after all!  Sure ain't I one of Nature's
leprechauns - albeit an overgrown one - who never falls out with
anybody unless anybody tries to shaft me in a not nice fashion, which
you're not trying!

>
> All I want is PROOF.

I agree with you - I think that if National has disenrolled Fred it
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 frankly,
I'd take Fred's word on it that he has received no communication from
National telling him he has officially been disenrolled.  If he has
why
does he have to learn this from Dave F. and not from the folk who
actually removed his name from the rolls - whether he requested it or
not?  If National feels Fred disenrolled himself why has it not
confirmed to him the fact that it has carried out his instructions?
The answer is apparent - it goes "Cluck .... Cluuck .... Cluuuck!
Chicken!"  And boy!  Do they lay eggs!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 07, 2001 6:27 AM

"Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.0112060630.edc0d99@posting.google.com...
Hi Milissa,

Listen, I've trimmed your headers!  Don't tell the husband!  But it's
all right cos Pat said so!

<SNIP>
> If Fred were to promise not to sue them for harassment, I am sure
they
> would.  Is Fred willing to promise this?

Under no stretch of the imagination can a straightforward letter
notifying somebody that his membership has been terminated be deemed
to be harassment.  I conclude that the use of this as an argument is
symptomatic of cowardice in the face of the enemy.

<SNIP>
>  You can't
> > be expelled or otherwise harmed for what you say in a place like
this
> > after all!
>
> No, but it can sure be uncomfortable!

Why?  Why should comments in this or any other place engender an
atmosphere of discomfort or fear?

>  Sure ain't I one of Nature's
> > leprechauns - albeit an overgrown one - who never falls out with
> > anybody unless anybody tries to shaft me in a not nice fashion,
which
> > you're not trying!
>
> I am very relieved to hear that my favorite leprechaun still loves
me!
> ;)  I really do hate disagreeing with people I like.

I disagree all the time with people I like.  That's one of the
advantages and benefits of friendship that you can disagree with
somebody but still count them as a friend!  Of course I'm not allowed
to disagree with Mrs Reaper!  Geez!  Talk about Holy Writ!

> I agree that they didn't tell him.  The question is why?

Lack of Moral Fibre! Sheer stupidity! Take your pick!

<SNIP>
> Well when I sent in my disenrollment letter I didn't get final
> confirmation either. The American Baha'i still comes, although it is
> addressed to Michael and not both of us like before.  He gets
official
> mail and I don't and it is clear from the statistics of our
community
> that I am counted as one of the 2 non-Baha'i spouses in the area.
So,
> the fact that they did not confirm it doesn't necessarily seem out
of
> place.

That your name has been removed from mailing lists and statistics is
confirmation of a sort.  Fred was cannier however!  Knowing that he
would, most likely, be expelled he got off the mailing lists first.
He also knew full well that after citing "harassment" National would
effectively twitter as to what to do with him and how to announce it.
Along comes Dave to solve that latter one!  Unfortunately, nobody
having had the brains to fully work out the consequences, this only
opened another avenue of exploitation for Fred et al to romp freely
in.

> > The answer is apparent - it goes "Cluck .... Cluuck .... Cluuuck!
> > Chicken!"  And boy!  Do they lay eggs!
>
> I know Fred thinks that the NSA is afraid of him or something, but I
> think they simply find him annoying.

That's National's biggest mistake!  Fred is actually very dangerous!
His site is well up there on the Search Engines - I've had private
mail from enquirers who look in here on TRB trying to make sense of
the contradictions between what the official sites say and the evident
acrimony here (I had one last night - I'm not saying who it was or
anything else).  I point such enquiries to the official sites AND to
Fred and Juan, on the basis that they are entitled to all of the
facts.

The mere fact that such sites as Fred's exist is a damning indictment
of the inability of the AO to create, foster and maintain unity in
diversity of thought.  It is a searing insight into the inability of
the AO to protect the good name and reputation of the BF - all that
this incompetent clique that is at the head of affairs does, is
provide ammunition for all of those who oppose and criticise it.  All
they accomplish is to drive out and make enemies of those who could be
within.  And make no mistake, Milissa, they have driven out the
brightest and the best!  Net result is that the driven out run rings
around them on the newsgroups whilst the incompetence flourishes from
New Mexico to Fred's membership card!

> You see them as chickens and
> they see him as the fox!  Thing is, both sides are probably right.
:(

And I'm the hound!  Woof! Woof!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:39 AM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112060757.14da7eef@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > 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
write
> > 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
this.

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
to
> 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
it
> > 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
frankly,
>
> WHAT?  I did what any Baha'i has the right to do - I wrote to
National
> to find out if Fred's claim was legit.  If I had not asked, they
would
> 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
from
> > National telling him he has officially been disenrolled.  If he
has
> > why does he have to learn this from Dave F. and not from the folk
who
> > actually removed his name from the rolls - whether he requested it
or
> > not?  If National feels Fred disenrolled himself why has it not
> > confirmed to him the fact that it has carried out his
instructions?
>
> Oh puh-leez.  Why should they confirm anything that someone
requests.
> 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
American
> 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
straighten
> 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,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 11:11 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208175428.02597.00002071@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >
> >if National feels able to delete names from it's list without any
> >notification at all at the time of occurrence then how do we know
they are
> >not also adding names willy nilly as the urge suits them
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> They did not remove Fred 'willy nilly' without notifying him. They
had honored
> his own demand not to be contacted, that is all. But you guys can
invent
> whatever fantasies you want about National.

Hi Randy,

There's none so blind as those who cannot see and the dear lady is a
prime example.  If Fred has been removed and not told about it,
there's no guarantee as to who is and who isn't a BIGS anymore.
Secretaries of local communities would be well advised to check the
status of community members on a weekly, if not daily basis, to ensure
that only Beehives who are confirmed as in good standing, can attend
Bahai-only functions and events.  One week you could be in and the
next day you're out but nobody will know that unless it is checked
regularly.

Who will know who's a BIGS anymore?  I think this has more serious
implications than the dear lady realises.  Damnit - for all we know
she might have been declared a CB already - and think of the
implications of that!  We're all risking spiritual morbidity now and
we don't know it!

Makes you fantasise!

As ever,

Dermod.

PS Are you sure you are still in and haven't been disenrolled?  What
about Dave and Pat?

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 6:11 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208002639.02564.00002087@mb-dh.aol.com...
> > At the same time it hopes to sell the story that Fred
> >withdrew of his own accord.
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> No one in the AO ever suggested that Fred withdrew on his own
accord. Because
> he had said he would consider any attempt to contact him as
harassment they
> decided to oblige him and therefore didn't contact him when they
removed him
> from the rolls.

Bullshit!  If that was the case then a top would have been put on
answering any query about Fred's membership.  That he has been
disenrolled, not informed of that BUT the information has been made
freely available to anybody who enquires, looks more like harassment
than any straightforward letter to him informing him that National has
exercised its prerogative and removed him from the rolls.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:39 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208110030.02564.00002160@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >That he has been
> >disenrolled, not informed of that BUT the information has been made
> >freely available to anybody who enquires, looks more like
harassment
>
> The Office of Membership and Records will inform anyone of a
person's
> membership status who request it. That is hardly harassment.

It's either that or backbiting when it hasn't told the person that his
membership status has been changed!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:58 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208105053.02564.00002157@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >
> >So he still is a BIGS - he is telling the truth!
> >
>
> No, I didn't say that. He was removed from the rolls whether he
requested it or
> not. He was not notified of that fact because he demanded not to be
contacted.

You recognise the ambivalence - did Fred seek to withdraw or did he
just cancel the American Bahai?  That alone is cause why he should
have been told of his disenrollment before anybody else was.

>
>  >If he hasn't been told he has been removed it is quite legitimate
for
> >him to state that he is still a Beehive in Good Standing.
>
> In good standing with whom?

The AO as it hasn't told him he isn't!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:25 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209010128.11254.00002482@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >
> >You recognise the ambivalence - did Fred seek to withdraw or did he
> >just cancel the American Bahai?
>
> He cancelled his American Baha'i *and* he told his Auxiliary Board
Member that
> any attempt to contact him would be considered harassment. He also
told the
> House of Justice he no longer cared about his status as a Baha'i.
But know, he
> didn't withdraw to my knowledge, nor have I ever heard anyone in the
> administration suggest that he had.

So you're on the inside track for information on Fred's expulsion!
Seems you know more about it than he does!  Isn't that odd?

<SNIP>
>
> >>  >If he hasn't been told he has been removed it is quite
legitimate
> >for
> >> >him to state that he is still a Beehive in Good Standing.
> >>
> >> In good standing with whom?
> >
> >The AO as it hasn't told him he isn't!
>
> If he can't stand them, why would he assume they can stand him?

Because they haven't told him otherwise!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 11:28 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208104916.02564.00002156@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >He insists he is a BIGS and has not been officially told
otherwise -
> >you insist he isn't!  Here's to the same round next and every month
> >that Fred reposts the same old message!
>
> Dermod,
>
> Fred will find some reason to post the same message again and again
and again,
> regardless. If they had sent him a letter that is what he would be
posting
> instead, along with something about how wronged he has been. What
difference
> does it make?

Well if Fred had been told that he had been disenrolled he couldn't
complain about it without subjecting himself to the "appeal" process.
But since he hasn't been told he doesn't have to resort to the
"appeal" process.  The former circumstance would have put the AO on
the high ground - the latter doesn't!

Any semi-competent person in the Old World Order would have handled
Fred in such a way as to hem him in and give him no cause for
complaint.  The AO is so far up to its oxsters in the New World Order
that essential verities like this elude it.  Like I said - do you want
me to handle the correspondence that would torpedo Fred?  On second
thoughts, don't bother - I have always been quite particular about
those for whom I do any work.

>
> >When are you people going to learn the lesson of not giving
ammunition
> >to the enemy?
>
> Besides Fred's demand that he not be contacted, I suspect that is
precisely why
> they didn't send him a letter.

They got it wrong - again!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:29 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208004600.02564.00002092@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >
> >Under no stretch of the imagination can a straightforward letter
> >notifying somebody that his membership has been terminated be
deemed
> >to be harassment.
>
> Under no stretch of the imagination can the letter the Hoda Mahmoudi
sent Fred
> be considered harassment either, yet Fred made it quite clear he
would consider
> it such. But then he always did have a wild imagination. :-)

You obviously have no imagination or you have forgotten the very real
fears experienced by many who came under investigation by the
authorities.  The real art of intimidation is that it is innocuous and
deniable.

I would suggest that it is not unreasonable for any letter from a ABM
to be viewed with suspicion.

> >That your name has been removed from mailing lists and statistics
is
> >confirmation of a sort.  Fred was cannier however!  Knowing that he
> >would, most likely, be expelled he got off the mailing lists first.
>
> Ahhh. So now you are arguing that Fred made every effort *not* to
know he was
> removed from the rolls. I think that is quite plausible.

I am speculating - not being privy to Fred's innermost thoughts. If my
speculation is correct then National has manoeuvred itself into the
mire that Fred foresaw it would!

> >He also knew full well that after citing "harassment" National
would
> >effectively twitter as to what to do with him and how to announce
it.
>
> I'm not sure they ever had any intention of announcing it. >

Now why does that surprise me - on's status as an American BIGS is
known only unto Wilmette and nobody else, not even you.  Dear Lady -
are you sure you are a BIGS?  Can you be certain?

> >
> >That's National's biggest mistake!  Fred is actually very
dangerous!
> >His site is well up there on the Search Engines - I've had private
> >mail from enquirers who look in here on TRB trying to make sense of
> >the contradictions between what
>
> I do too. Some of them have become Baha'is as a result. :-)

There's no accounting for tastes - but there can't be that many.  You
have stated in another place that deaths exceed enrollments - a
situation that will improve as the Baby Boomers approach the time of
turning up the toes!

>
> >And make no mistake, Milissa, they have driven out the
> >brightest and the best!
>
> If Fred represents our 'brightest and best' we are indeed in
trouble.

You are indeed in trouble - membership falling, finances in crisis and
a laughing stock where Fred's membership, or lack thereof, is
concerned.

He's certainly a lot brighter, better and more capable than the
current incumbents of high position in the AO.  After all Fred's lone
shenanigans have incurred the total wrath thereof and twisted it into
a situation where it can't even send him a simple letter.  Rarely in
the course of Bahai Wars has so much confusion and humiliation been
caused by one lone individual.  ROFL!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 11:17 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208104606.02564.00002155@mb-dh.aol.com...
> . If my
> >speculation is correct then National has manoeuvred itself into the
> >mire that Fred foresaw it would!
> >
>
> You mean by honoring Fred's demand that he not be contacted?

Got it in one!

> >Now why does that surprise me - on's status as an American BIGS is
> >known only unto Wilmette and nobody else, not even you.
>
> It is known to anyone who asks Membership and Records, as Dave found
out.

I shall be checking on these memberships - one has to be careful whom
one calls a BIGS now!

>
> >Dear Lady -
> >are you sure you are a BIGS?  Can you be certain?
>
> I still get my American Baha'i. :-)

So I was right - the criterion for membership of the US BIGS community
is receipt of the American Bahai.

> >You
> >have stated in another place that deaths exceed enrollments - a
> >situation that will improve as the Baby Boomers approach the time
of
> >turning up the toes!
>
> I don't think I said that. But you are correct that if the present
demographics
> were to hold that would be the case. Like many new religions our
major growth
> was in the 70's

Has anybody worked out why this is the case?  Is Fred the reason?

>
> > After all Fred's lone
> >shenanigans have incurred the total wrath thereof and twisted it
into
> >a situation where it can't even send him a simple letter.
>
> What wrath? He asked them not to speak to him, so they didn't.

Why the righteous wrath that kicked him out - what else?  Well apart
from the chickenshit fear that couldn't summon the courage to tell him
or ask for the return of his membership card which, as some have
pointed out, is the property of the AO!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 6:48 AM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:L4VP7.24336$PQ2.2653693@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Robert,

As Uncle Pat has requested, I've trimmed your headers for you.  These
administrative details are quite important - Uncle Pat has written,
through me, to the group requesting that the headers be trimmed.  This
is good administrative practice and one that can only be carried into
effect by communication.

> Dermod, whether or not I am a good Baha'i is a determination neither
you nor
> I are capable of making. However, we are both capable of identifying
> slander, backbiting, hatred, bigotry, lies, and whathaveyou. We are
both
> capable of identifying love, patience, courtesy, reverence,
whathaveyou.

I tend not to judge the condition of another's soul unless that soul
is trying to judge me or others.

> The evidence clearly shows that the Baha'is attempted to discuss
with Mr.
> Glaysher whether or not he wished to be considered a Baha'i, whether
or not
> he believed in Baha'u'llah and whether or not he wished to obey the
laws and
> ordinances Baha'u'llah revealed. Mr. Glaysher, for reason or reasons
he has
> not stated, refused that meeting, and furthermore demanded that HE
NOT BE
> CONTACTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, ANY MORE. He himself has
attested to
> this, therefore, I fail to see why you insist that Baha'is should
have
> contacted him.

The status quo was that Fred was a BIGS.  That places no obligation on
him to meet with any ABM - indeed his statements that he not be
contacted could have been viewed as indicative of his wish to distance
himself from activity in the Bahai community for a length of time.
This, I understand is permissible.  In light of the content of Fred's
website, after the experiences of Steve Scholl, Juan Cole etc
(detailed there and elsewhere) it should have dawned on the AO that
proposed meetings with ABMs were going to be viewed with suspicion and
scepticism by persons who held certain views.  This may seem strange
to you but as one who underwent "interrogation" by a Bahai institution
long ago, I find it not at all unusual.  Bahai institutions, in my
experience are extremely loving and caring when they are looking for
something from you but when the shoe is on the other foot, they tend
to get quite nasty.

National determined to change the status quo as far as Fred was
concerned.  That placed an obligation on it to inform Fred of that
fundamental change, whether or not he had placed strictures on
communication.  Such communication could not in any way, by any
reasonable person, be construed as harrassment.  It did not do so!
Rather, it chose the coward's way of telling somebody else and
off-loading the decision as to whether or not to tell Fred onto that
person.  That is despicable!

> Inasmuch as the Baha'is have also not contacted you or anyone else
who
> participates here, re the status of Mr. Glaysher, I also fail to see
where
> backbiting has entered the picture. The Baha'i national office has
said
> nothing, other than to reply to inquiries that the individual in
question is
> not a member of the Baha'i Faith. It has said absolutely nothing
beyond that
> simple statement. Others have, however.

Sure!  It has told somebody else that Fred is not a BIGS.  It hasn't
told Fred - incidentally obviating thereby any potential appeal
against this decision.  In your book that may be all right - to me, it
has simply confirmed the incompetenbce and cowardice of the AO and,
delightfully, made another great stick to beat it with.

>
> As to the delay in changing your status, I find that normal. Baha'i
offices
> are staffed with volunteers the world over. As an example, my older
son had
> to repeatedly request an ID card, which took over a year to arrive,
simply
> because his declaration card had been misplaced somewhere in the 212
area
> code. His younger brother actually got his ID card before his
fifteenth
> birthday. Go figure.

Balderdash!  National offices in the US and UK have full and part time
paid employees.  They may indeed be overworked but that can only
explain delay not incompetence. The letter I got did apologise for the
delay.  Fred just hasn't got one at all - along with Deborah Buchhorn
and God knows how many others.

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9uoukd$9ntiu$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:DKzP7.18454$Ws6.2648836@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > Robert
> >
> > > In other words, you acknowledge that a meeting was requested by
a
> > member of
> > > the Baha'i Faith, and Fred refused it in a hostile and
threatening
> > manner.
> > > The Baha'is have honored his request to not be contacted, after
> > trying to
> > > contact him.
> > >
> > > His posts clearly show that he does not wish to follow the
teachings
> > of
> > > Baha'u'llah, and he does not wish to have contact with His
> > followers. What
> > > other proof would you wish for that he is not a Baha'i?
> >
> > Carrying a card may make you a BIGS but says nothing about your
status
> > as a Bahai.  You are in no position to judge Fred's motives or
actions
> > beyond noting that they do not accord with your perceptions of
Bahai
> > teachings.  Some would see your perceptions as being especially
> > ill-informed and misguided.
> >
> > National has nonoured nothing in this debacle except its own
> > cowardice - if it is satisfied that Fred withdrew of his own
accord
> > then it ought to, as a matter of courtesy, confirm to him, in
writing,
> > that it has removed his name from the rolls.  It has written to
Dave
> > telling him this - it has not apparently written to Fred.
> >
> > After all when I left, National wrote to me confirming that my
> > resignation had resulted in my name being removed from the rolls.
> > Mind you I had to get nasty with it to get this done - a year
after I
> > had resigned.  But it was done and it should be done with Fred -
not
> > with Dave or anybody else.  Until or unless National has notified
Fred
> > that he is gone it should not communicate that information to
anybody
> > else.  Acting behind somebody's back like that sounds mightily
like
> > the backbiting the AO decries but purely loves to indulge in!
Ooops!
> > Sorry! When the AO does it - it ain't backbiting!
> >
> > As ever,
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> >
> > > "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9ul693$9a4hb$5@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1geP7.16531$PQ2.2028628@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > Robert,
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know that Mr. Glaysher has not been contacted, or
> > that
> > > > there was
> > > > > not a legitimate attempt to contact him?
> > > >
> > > > Because nobody has ever produced a letter from National
telling
> > him
> > > > that he had been disenrolled.  There is other corroborative
> > > > circumstantial evidence that such a letter was never sent.
> > > >
> > > > The house wrote to a number of people detailing why Alison
> > Marshall
> > > > was expelled yet never explained this to her - in Michael's
case
> > it
> > > > said more to his wife than to him.
> > > >
> > > > As to a letter from an ABM - one assumes that this was a
request
> > for a
> > > > meeting.  After all only National and not an ABM can expell
one
> > from
> > > > membership!
> > > >
> > > > As ever,
> > > >
> > > > Dermod.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:9ujggi$915ub$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > > "Milissa" <milissabk@altavista.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:df0d6959.0112041122.42fd24fb@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > Fred--
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why don't you just write to them and tell them they
> > > > misunderstood
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > request and asked to be reinstated?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WHY don't you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Faith has enough problems without you making some up
or
> > > > causing
> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please attempt to rectify this situation with them
before
> > you
> > > > > > subject
> > > > > > > us on the list to another round of regurgiposts.  You
> > haven't
> > > > even
> > > > > > > written to them to tell them they misunderstood, have
you?
> > You
> > > > > > > haven't even tried to resolve this.  If, after
contacting
> > them
> > > > to
> > > > > > > explain the misunderstanding, they refuse to reinstate
you,
> > then
> > > > you
> > > > > > > might actually have a point.  At this time, you don't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Au contraire, Milissa!  If National has disenrolled Fred
the
> > onus
> > > > is
> > > > > > on it to inform him of that fact, not Dave F, Pat K, Tony
> > Blair,
> > > > David
> > > > > > Trimble or Uncle Andy!  It seems that anybody who
contacted
> > > > Wilmette
> > > > > > was told that Fred had been cut off, if not in his prime
then
> > > > surely
> > > > > > in some other state of which he is, equally, unaware!  But
> > nobody
> > > > at
> > > > > > National has deigned to tell Fred or, pace Dave F. etc.,
> > confirm
> > > > that
> > > > > > he has been disenrolled.  When I escaped the clutches, the
UK
> > > > National
> > > > > > wrote to confirm my name had been taken off the rolls!
maybe
> > > > Wilmette
> > > > > > could follow suit.  Unless/until it does I'm all for Fred
> > claiming
> > > > to
> > > > > > be a BIGS of the finest kind!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I glean from this is that Wilmette is inhabited by a
> > flock of
> > > > > > clucking chickens (note I checked the spelling to avert
> > > > > > unpleasantries) who haven't the guts to face up to Fred
and
> > tell
> > > > him
> > > > > > that they have given him the heave!  Gutless, spineless
fundie
> > > > loonies
> > > > > > with a great big yellowstain where the backbone ought to
be
> > and
> > > > you
> > > > > > want to go back and join them!  Give us a break - you got
more
> > to
> > > > you
> > > > > > than that!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As ever,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dermod.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
> > > > > > <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:<9ufqrp$7ou3o$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > > > > > Bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
> > mailing
> > > > > > list."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In 1996 my request to the circulation department for
the
> > > > American
> > > > > > Bahai,
> > > > > > > > repeated twice and perhaps a third time, read, "Please
> > remove
> > > > my
> > > > > > name and
> > > > > > > > address from your mailing list." I had torn off the
> > preprinted
> > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > change label regularly published on the back page of
the
> > > > American
> > > > > > Bahai and
> > > > > > > > mailed it into the address given for subscription
changes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I asked for nothing other than my name and address to
be
> > > > removed
> > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > mailing list--no gloss, no explanation, no complaint,
no
> > > > threat,
> > > > > > etc....
> > > > > > > > Dermod Ryder's speculation that willingness to receive
the
> > > > > > American Bahai
> > > > > > > > has become compulsory should give pause....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, note well, I used the address on the back of
the
> > > > American
> > > > > > Bahai given
> > > > > > > > specifically for handling subscription addresses. I
did
> > not
> > > > write
> > > > > > the nsa,
> > > > > > > > its secretary, etc. My communication was limited to
the
> > > > simplest
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > requests: remove my name and address from your mailing
> > list.
> > > > Not a
> > > > > > word or
> > > > > > > > suggestion about withdrawing from the Bahai Faith, nor
any
> > > > > > criticism of it
> > > > > > > > whatsoever, real nor implied. I conveyed my wishes to
the
> > > > proper
> > > > > > address, as
> > > > > > > > announced in the American Bahai itself. That I
received a
> > > > response
> > > > > > back from
> > > > > > > > an entirely different address speaks volumes, as they
say.
> > > > After
> > > > > > six years,
> > > > > > > > I believe the time is now right to release it
publicly.
> > I've
> > > > > > scanned the
> > > > > > > > letter so others might read the original.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not about to accept the slander and backbiting of
> > > > fanatics
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fundamentalists nor allow them to provoke me into one
> > action
> > > > or
> > > > > > another. I
> > > > > > > > prefer the facts: Again, I declared my belief in
> > Baha'u'llah
> > > > in
> > > > > > 1976 and
> > > > > > > > notified the nsa, who sent me back the declaration
card
> > > > available
> > > > > > on my
> > > > > > > > homepage. I have never notified them otherwise. They,
as
> > > > > > distinguished from
> > > > > > > > liars and sycophants online, have never notified me to
the
> > > > > > contrary. Scanned
> > > > > > > > orignials at
> > > > > > https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/nsa1996.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The other two letters were related to the Detroit
local
> > > > spiritual
> > > > > > assembly
> > > > > > > > and its junk mail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:22 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209010733.11254.00002483@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >
> >But the process hasn't been followed -
>
> I just said that he refused to cooperate in any process.

Like I said - the process has not been followed!

> >Fred would not have known that he is in a position to lodge an
> >appeal - if he wants to, which I doubt he does.
>
> Then what is the fuss about?

About his having the choice of appealing - about National having the
courtesy (at least) to inform somebody of a change in their status as
a BIGS.

>  >
> >Once upon a time Fred was a BIGS
>
> Probably a long, long time ago.

So!

>
> >He
> >told the AO not to contact him - i.e. he went "inactive."
>
> Fred has hardly been inactive.

As far as the AO is concered he is "inactive" i'e. he does not work
for its purposes.  In other ways Fred has been most active.

  > >Now you maintain that the AO did not contact Fred out of
consideration
> >for his request not to be contacted at all.
>
> There is no "now" about it. It was what I was told at the time.

At what time - when Fred was expelled or when Dave was told?  Indeed
when was Fred expelled?  Does anybody know that - including Fred?

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 8:56 PM

"Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u172mu23745o9d@corp.supernews.com...
Hi Karen.

> Fred just doesn't upset me much. I'm not crazy about his approach,
but then,
> I could say that of some other AO critics as well.  He's
deliberately made
> himself into the guy everybody loves to hate. He crossposts
repetitive
> messages, says some wild stuff sometimes, and generally makes
himself a pain
> in the butt.  On the other hand, he has made a strong stand for
freedom of
> conscience and expression and has a wealth of information on his
website
> about cases of AO injustice. There are very few who have done as
much to
> promote awareness of the problems in the Baha'i system about those
issues.
> Fred, or at least his online persona (which I believe to be
deliberately
> contrived), is about as lovable as a prickly pear, but he has made
an
> important contribution.

Fred is the one guy that the AO loves to hate.

The measure of his effectiveness is that the wee shites haven't the
guts to tell him that they have disenrolled him.  And it is a measure
of their rancour that they can tell the dear lady "in confidence" and
know that she will use that information to help cover their hypocrisy.

As far as I am concerned Fred is a BIGS until or unless those smarmy
"gits" at Wilmette officially say otherwise.

Whether they do or don't, Fred has won this round.  Nobody but a crass
idiot can accept a  situation in which the AO expells an adherent and
fails to tell him whilst telling all and sundry, as being in any way
morally justifiable or the product of a righteous upright society.

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 8:58 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209131903.16269.00002631@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >
> >No - they just tell that one who thought he was a BIGS ain't a BIGS
> >and they haven't told him because they say he didn't want them to
tell
> >him anything.
>
> That is not what they said Dermod. They simp gave a negative answer
to
> someone's question regarding whether Fred was a Baha'i. They gave no
further
> information as you suggest.

Just in case it hasn't registered with the dormant organ, that is all
they have to say! That says it all - Fred was a BIGs, Fred is no
longer a BIGS and the AO hasn't the balls to tell him but it will tell
everybody else who asks and eventually somebody will tell Fred!  What
a bunch of wimps!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:10 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209132027.16269.00002632@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >But because of he said he
> >would
> >> consider any contact from them to be harassment, they saw no
reason
> >to inform
> >> him of this fact.
> >
> >But not, presumably, anybody else who enquired!
>
> If Fred had enquired, I'm sure they would have told him as well.
They were not
> going to initiate communication with someone who has essentially
said, 'Don't
> talk to me!'

But they were not initiating communication - they merely had to inform
him that as he didn't want to communicate with them, they had decided
to terminate his membership.  That would have been the courteous and
sensible thing to do.  Maybe Fred would have blazened this across TRb
but, at least, the AO would have been seen as having the balls to
terminate him and tell him they had done it.  It's not as if this
would remain secret forever; it was bound to come out someday.  Better
that it come out with the AO smelling of roses (having done the proper
thing) rather than being seen to be skulking behind the bushes!

All it has done is give another reason to lambast it - not for having
terminated Fred but for not having the decency to tell him.  All it
has achieved is further proof of the assertion that the AO is corrupt,
inept and incompetent.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:29 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112100754.455f1895@posting.google.com...
> Dermod,
>
> > I have no bias against the AO - I have formed an opinion as to its
> > competence or lack thereof based on research and experience!
>
> ... and you let that opinion shade everything that anyone ever says
> about the AO.  That is bias.

No - it is not bias to lambast the AO for incompetence, of which I
have seen many examples over the years.  You on the other hand close
your ears and eyes to even consider that there is institutional
incompetece that could be rectified if more effort were directed to
that and less to its defence through thick and thin, right and wrong.
If I have bias then so have you - my bias is capable of elimination if
the AO were to be reformed - yours isn't!

>
>
> > > 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
> > > to 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.
>
> ... and if National ever did contact Fred, do you think he would
tell
> us?

Well! If he didn't, the dear lady would - so I don't think it has and
having made a pig's buttocks of the situation (with stalwart defence
thereof from you and the dear lady) it sees no need to conract him at
all in saecula saeculorum.

>
> > 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.
>
> I have not seen you do that.  I mean you won't say a single thing
> about Fred's behavior :-)

Why should I?  I'm not here to defend the AO- I'm not here to offer
aid and succour to it; I'm not here to assist its defence against its
critics.  And let's face facts - you're whinging for condemnation of
Fred because he's perceived as the greatest threat to the current
order!  Fred does his thing and he does it well!  If you don't like
it, try doing something to take the ammunition away from him!

> > 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!
>
> Oh, Dermod - even if Fred were contacted and he did tell us you
would
> just find something new to have fun with.

Dave - I can always find something to have fun with; indeed I have fun
away from TRB as it is!  Now if you guys realised that the current
situation is not one which is advantageous and your current tactics
merely exacerbate that situation and tried something new, you might
just cut off this source of fun for me.  But if that ever happened
there's an awful lot of loonies out there whom you're keeping me away
from at the moment!

> > > WHAT?  I did what any Baha'i has the right to do - I wrote to
> > > National to find out if Fred's claim was legit.  If I had not
asked, they
> > > would 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!
>
> That is so weak Dermod.

In other words - you've no answer to proffer!

> > > Tell you what - let's say that the disenrollment was a
> > > misunderstanding and Fred wanted to be a Baha'i but stop the
> > > American 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
> > > straighten it out?
> >
> > Why should he?  National has made a stick for him to beat it!
Like I
> > said - Fred is no fool!
>
> Coulda fooled me.  Look, if the heat in your house gets cut off
> because of an ambiguous letter you sent to the heating company are
you
> just going to sit and freeze while you wait to hear from them?  No.
> You are going to call whoever you need to until the situation is
> corrected.  This is no different.

This is the age of "glayshiation" but Fred ain't the one who is
freezing or closing his old folk's home!  Now if the AO is a utility
offering heat (or salvation) to its customers I would think Fred has a
case for referring it to the regulatory authorities for cutting him
off on the basis of correspondence which is not clear in its intent.
Fred cannot be shown to have applied to have his heat cut off - rather
the utility decided to terminate the supply!  fred has lodged his
complaint with the appropriate regulatory authority - vox populi, and
it is responding by hitting his website, drawing closed the purse
strings and seeking heat from alternative suppliers.

> > > 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!
>
> Trouble is that Fred is a self appointed Martyr and nobody cares.
The
> more he cross posts to places like alt.culture.indian and
> alt.culture.mogolian the more troll-like he becomes.  No one is
> listening to him anymore.  He could have the most valid concern in
the
> world, but he has killed his credability.

So why are y'all so annoyed with him if he's engaged in a
self-defeating methodology!  Methinks you do dismiss him too easily!

> > > 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!
>
> For you, but Fred seems to think otherwise.

Fred's entitled to his opinion.  I do not deign to insist he agree
with me just as I do not necessarily have to agree with him on all
things.  Parrots, inter alia, find this concept beyond their
capabilities!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:34 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112100740.499d1d00@posting.google.com...
> Paul,
>
> > As someone who actually agrees with a lot of Fred's more serious
> > arguments, I find his methods embarrassing sometimes.  I tend to
> > think of him as the embarrassing uncle who farts a lot.  You've
> > hung around on Beliefnet - I'm sure you must be aware of that
> > feeling yourself with some of the embarrassing uncles whose
> > viewpoints you largely agree with but whose style sometimes
> > stinks.
>
> Yes,  I have seen Baha'is act in ways that I felt were not very
> tactful or wise.  I try to tell them what I think.  I often ask
folks
> to take a breath, calm down, and reflect.  I have also told Baha'is
> that go over the top, that they have gone over the top IMO and need
to
> chill.  Just ask effy on Beliefnet.  What burns me is when folks
like
> Dermod defend the indefesible just because they are on the same
"side"
> of an issue.

Dave, if you haven't sussed it yet - I don't agree with Fred, Paul or
whoever on everything.  However, expelling Fred without telling him it
has been done, never mind when it has been done and communicating that
fact to you and the dear lady, is indefensible!!

> I am glad that folks like you and Milissa are taking a stand like
> this.  If places like this are going to be of any value then people
> who disagree are going to have to treat each other as equals, and
> eliminate the insults and flames.
>
> Many people abandon TRB/ARB simply because of the nasty tone here.
If
> this place is going to work then it needs to be much more civil than
> it currently is, IMO.

You want me to be nice to Miss Maddy and Evensong!  G'away and get
your head felt!

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:34 AM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112110649.79971838@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > ... expelling Fred without telling him it has been done ... is
> > indefensible!!
>
> Let's clear that up.  Fred was not expelled.  He withdrew.
>
> The conversation went kinda like this:
>
> Fred: "Take me off your lists?"
>
> National: "Did you mean just the mailing lists or the membership
list
> as well."
>
> Fred:  "What kind of idiot are you?  Take me off your lists, and if
> you ever contact me again I will drag your ass to court!"
>
> Silence as National complies with Fred'd request.
>
> As Milissa pointed out - no one who withdraws ever gets
confirmation.

I did resign from the Bahai community and I did get confirmation that
that had been actioonned in the administrative records.

>
> End of story.  Now - to me National owes Fred nothing.

Fred disagrees - he said that he did not withdraw!  There is a
disputation as to fact.  How shall it be resolved?

Until it is, this thread shall repeat, like a Mexican Chilli or a
decent Madras Curry!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 10:54 PM

"Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
news:fwrR7.917$a%5.177415@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
 Dear Randy,

> I think you are missing the point on the closing of the Old Folks
Home.  No
> doubt there is money to be made and the current location is prime
real
> estate.  As you said, additions to Bob's house are imminent.
>
> This is a question of desire I think, since I doubt the world will
miss the
> Baha'i Old Folks Home.  Such activity is commercially viable here in
the
> U.S. and I'm sure that not a single old folk will suffer as a result
of this
> closing.  Apparently the Baha'is of the U.S. just don't have the
desire to
> do this anymore.

I wasn't missing the point - care homes here are privately run both
for the elderly and the disabled.  They are heavily and rightly
regulated by the Health authorities who pay the residential fees for
those who cannot afford to do do themselves.  They are profitable -
last I recollect the market value was about £20,000 per bed space
(about $32.000) and that was 4-5 years purchase.  I assume the
economics in the US are not that different which made me wonder why
commercial funding would not be available for any necessary upgrades.

The question is one therefore - will we hear the site has been sold or
appropriated for Bob's new house?

> Maybe they have bigger and better humanitarian projects in mind.
>
> Here' hoping!

Don't hold your breath, good buddy!  A humanitarian project which is
capable of paying more than its way, if properly run, is not one
lightly to be shed.  I can hear the silence from our BIGS friends on
this one - a touch of the Simon and Garfunkel which seems to be of
interest in another place.

As ever,

Dermod

>
> Dermod Ryder <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9v5dj3$datf4$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:d1iR7.4142$ga.1212573@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > Robert,
> >
> > > Easy
> > >
> > > The present structure requires more money to upgrade to current
> > legal
> > > standards than it is worth. It, the structure, is therefore
being
> > closed.
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken a significant part of the Kingdom Project was
the
> > upgrading of the Old Folks' Home.  Current legal standards are
usually
> > promulgated some years in advance of the time they are to become
> > mandatory that a chance is offered to upgrade to them.  Presumably
> > these standards were known therefore at the time the Project was
drawn
> > up and costed.  So how come that now the whole thing is
uneconomic?
> >
> > In light of the fact that the Home charges the residents it should
be
> > a profit centre generating a modest surplus towards its upkeep and
the
> > subsidisation of less well off residents.  I would have thought
that
> > the funds to upgrade it could have been borrowed commercially -
much
> > as the UK NSA is proposing to borrow commercially to fund the
> > acquisition of a National Sub-office.
> >
> > It seems to me that priorities need to be re-assessed at
Wilmette - an
> > old folks' home is far more important than almost anything else in
the
> > entire Project!  I would have thought extensions to Bob's house
could
> > wait!
> >
> > As ever,
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> > > "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:9v2gbe$h81$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > >
> > > > Greetings, Dermod.
> > > >     Actually, this could be a quite significant comment you
made.
> > Do you
> > > > mean the US NSA is closing the Senior Citizens Residence at
> > Wilmette? As
> > > > I understand the history, Baha'u'llah wrote that Baha'i Houses
of
> > Worship
> > > > are intended to be centres of humanitarian activity and when
the
> > American
> > > > Baha'is suggested the Temple in Wilmette to begin fulfilling
this
> > > > requirement have a library connected with it, Shoghi Effendi,
I
> > think it
> > > > was, said this was unacceptable and more direct care of
society
> > was
> > > > necessary. Thus, was the senior citizens residence founded.
> > > >     If my interpretation of your comment is correct and this
is
> > now being
> > > > closed, unless some other alternative humanitarian activity is
> > replacing
> > > > it, we are observing a highly significant decline in the
> > institution of
> > > > the American National Mashriqal Adhkar, a retrogression below
what
> > was
> > > > acceptable in previous generations by Shoghi Effendi.
> > > >     I await with interest any clarification.
> > > >
Slan,
> > > >
Michael
> > > >
> > > > "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes:
> > > > > "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:20011209133223.16269.00002635@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Don't need to - I use Hendi's name and number to access
that
> > > > > place -
> > > > >> >not that it's worth it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is that your wife? Are you saying you can access the US
> > > > > administrative website
> > > > >> using an Irish I.D.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Geez!  You really are a dumb cluck!  "Hendi" as in Robert
C.!
> > Duh!
> > > > > Geddit!  Sometimes, however, just for fun, I log on as you!
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >I haven't seen anything of importance on it
> > > > >> >yet - nothing about reforms in New Mexico, declining
numbers.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Or a letter telling Baha'is not to say the prayer for
America?
> > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > No - didn't see that but then I didn't claim to have seen it
so
> > why
> > > > > would I have?  Did see the lovely bit about closing the old
> > folks'
> > > > > home!  Now there'll be nowhere for you in your dotage!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> > > >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: About wearing religious jewelry... Are you protected?
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 10:41 PM

"Jen" <jc_well2001[REMOVETHIS]@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vatR7.165$fv5.168699919@twister2.starband.net...
>
> Also, please direct me to a website that explains more about the
Bahai
> faith.

As well as the site Dave has directed you to you might also like to
look at

https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/index.htm

which presents a somewhat different picture of life in the Bahai
community.  The links provided there are well worth a look -
especially those pertaining to Alison Marshall and Juan Cole.

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - talk.religion.bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 9:03 AM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D__R7.7977$Ha.1980843@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> It is my belief that many of  the comments you categorize as
"...have been
> doing so out of love for the Baha'i Faith." emanate clearly from
some other
> emotion, one that allows the poster to denounce, backbite, find
fault,
> criticize, ridicule and otherwise drag down those Baha'i men and
women who
> have served with such marvelous love, faith and devotion the cause
of
> Baha'u'llah.

But not competence!

>
> It is not unusual for people to pick and choose passages, and
portions of
> passages that fit their own agenda.

Yup! the AO does it all the time too!

>We have read here on arb/trb certain
> quotes, repeated repeatedly, that have been utilized in an effort to
call
> into question the morality, ethics and devotion of the Baha'i
community.
> Schism is clearly identified in the Baha'i writings as being
contrary to the
> will of God. Backbiting, slander, lying and cynicism are among the
more oft
> utilized tools that lead to schism.

Yup!  That is why the AO is careening the BF towards schism!  It has
already happened and will continue until all of you BIGS can a grip on
the AO and control its excesses.

> The vast majority of Baha'is who voted that first time around
expressed
> clearly their intent that Baha'u'llah's name not be sullied in this
fashion.
> This puts you in opposition to the overwhelming majority of Baha'is,
not the
> Baha'i administrative order, which did not act to prohibit Baha'is
from
> participating, and has not since.

And who has sullied the Cause of Baha'u'llah more than the ardent
supporters of the AO?

> You are free to prove me wrong, free to quote from the writings of
> Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha' and so demonstrate that an assault on
the
> Universal House of Justice is commendable, or even permissible.

You're telling me that it is above criticism?

Dermod.

>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9v56oc$l00$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > Dearest Robert,
> >     Our perceptions of reality are considerably different.
> >     My experience, both on the e-mail lists with several dozen or
score
> > subscribers, and in wider cyberspace, is that there is a desire by
some
> > to prevent opinions at variance to their own from being expressed.
It
> > is not a question, in this wonderful modern technology, even of
having
> > to have your eyes sullied by the thoughts of those who disagree
with you.
> > You can simply kill file them and delightfully imbibe what pleases
you.
> > No, the issue is that these displeasing contradictory thoughts are
so
> > convincing that you, and more significantly, the men now sitting
on the
> > chairs intended for members of the Universal House of Justice,
would
> > rather no one read them.
> >     I have often posted to Baha'i cyberspace that you and those
like you
> > can have your say. That's what freedom of speech is all about. If
you are
> > indeed the majority, then let all these 900 plus naysayers come
and share
> > with us words of wisdom and love. Surely, these will swamp all the
hate
> > you perceive here, though honestly I don't see that hate. What I
see is
> > honest criticism of the lot currently in power. Since they are
ruling
> > over an entity in considerable decline, such criticism is the
opposite
> > of hate. Anyone with an IQ higher than a twig's and hating Baha'is
would
> > merely gloat silently while the inept guys in power continued
their dive.
> > Those who for years have been speaking up have been doing so out
of love
> > for the Baha'i Faith.
> >                                                             To
Love,
> >
Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > "Robert Little" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes:
> > > What happened is that Baha'is voted against it first time
around. On the
> > > last vote, most of those Baha'is who had voted against it the
first time
> > > simply did not vote again. The remaining Baha'is who had an
interest in
> it
> > > voted more for it than against it.
> > >
> > > As this is a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of Baha'u'llah
and His
> Faith,
> > > and as the majority of His followers who did vote that first
time
> generally
> > > did not want an unmoderated forum that would allow backbiting,
spite,
> > > deceit, lies, racism, bigotry and the like to populate a forum
with the
> name
> > > of the Glory of God attached; and, inasmuch as the Baha'i Faith
> inculcates
> > > the concept of the will of the majority taking precedence over
the will
> of
> > > the few, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this
newsgroup ought
> not
> > > to exist, reasonable to conclude that it exists more because of
hatred
> than
> > > of love, reasonable to conclude that the protagonist of this
newsgroup
> did
> > > not wish to abide by the overwhelming wish of the Baha'i
community.
> > >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> > > "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com>
> > > wrote in message news:9v2c4k$cb2me$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> > >> Michael,
> > >>
> > >> 600+ no votes on the first interest poll. You're right that
> > >> people on news.groups were noticeably shocked by the
> > >> figure and realized something was going on. One of them
> > >> immediately created alt.religion.bahai in response. There's
> > >> a very long and complicated record of fundamentalist
> > >> interference in the creation of talk.religion.bahai.
> > >>
> > >> For those interested, most of the relevant docs are at this
link:
> > >> https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/trbmenu.htm
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> FG
> > >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> > >> https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > >> news:9v0nel$q4k$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > >> > Hi, Pat.
> > >> >     Duh, have I wandered into another sliders world again. I
recall
> some
> > >> > outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first time
TRB was
> voted
> > >> > on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped out on
finally
> > >> > getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory, but
perhaps
> all
> > >> > these alternate universes I've passed through contributes to
that. I
> do
> > >> > have the impression it took three tries before TRB got
through.
> Taking
> > > all
> > >> > three votes, including that first one with its NSA of Iceland
NO
> vote,
> > > or
> > >> > was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more
Baha'is voted
> to
> > >> > prevent this first uncensored line of communication in recent
Baha'i
> > >> > generations.
> > >> >
Thrive,
> > >> >
M.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > He has voting results which show that more Baha'is voted
for TRB
> than
> > >> against
> > >> > > it, yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to TRB
> formation.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Blessings!
> > >> > > - Pat
> > >> > > kohli@ameritel.net
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> > >> >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 9:13 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011213021242.12706.00002110@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >
> >Fred is the one guy that the AO loves to hate.
> >
>
> When have you even heard the AO even talk about him? The only thing
they have
> ever done is respond to questions about his membership status.

That's the problem - they removed him but hadn't the guts or manners
to tell him!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:17 AM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112111400.1132dc62@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > > Yes, but you see incompetence where there is none.
> >
> > Over the matter of Fred's no longer being a BIGS?  There is
> > incompetence there - knowing him to be troublesome, National
should
> > have made sure that everything relating to him was confirmed in
> > writing so that he should have naught more to complain about.
That
> > included telling him that he was out - no letter to that effect
would
> > have stood in any court as being vexatious or harrassing.
>
> It does not matter what would stand and what would not - you still
> have to pay the lawyers.

Like they did in New Mexico?

>
> > And the measure of competence is the effort exerted to correct
> > mistakes when they are made. Give examples of how and where these
> > bodies have tried to make amends on these matters!
>
> Why, I admitted that these were mistakes.  They have not been
> corrected.  Am I missing something here?

Yup!  A competent organisation, when it makes mistakes, corrects them
and institutes procedures to ensure the mistakes are not repeated.
Part of the corrective action is apologising to and ameliorating
relations with the aggrieved party.

> > > All I am asking is to be a bit more objective.  Yes, you can and
> > > should point out the flaws in the system, but don't create flaws
> > > where they do not exist.
> >
> > The flaws exist because they are not addressed!
>
> Not talking to someone who has threatened to sue if you do is a wise
> thing to do.

On the contrary - it is the most foolish thing to do for that's the
way to wind up in Court as in New Mexico.

> > Ah c'mon, Dave!  Everybody knows who the "Dear Lady" is!  It's not
as
> > if I haven't addressed her that way for months past!  I'll give
you a
> > clue - the "Queen of AOL"
>
> Ah.  I see.

Splendid - I won't have to send you a month's supply of contact
lenses!

> > > > Why should I?
> > >
> > > Because Fred is a cross-posting spamster whose posts often cross
> > > over into the absurd.
> >
> > That's free expression, Dave!  That's what it is all about!
>
> No expression is free.  He is breaking the rules of netiquette.  He
is
> being a troll.  That is just plain wrong.  Mesbah does the same
thing.
>  You probably did not read the thread in alt.native where I
confronted
> him and asked him to stop bothering the folks there with unwanted
> posts about the Faith.  I do not hesitate to address the troll
problem
> no matter what "side" they are on.

Spamming and trolling, as you put it, spreads the word all over the
place!  that's what makes it annoying to the AO - it cannot get ahead
of Fred, it can't find the pass where it can head him off!

> > > You don't have to, but at least have the honesty and objectivity
to
> > > call for a foul no matter who commits it.
> >
> > But I do when I see one.  However I distinguish between Fred's
> > cross-posting which I perceive as essentially mischievous and the
> > malevolence displayed by the AO to its perceived opponents!
>
> Fred goes around insulting a religion to all and sundry and that is
> just miscief?  No way.  He is being intentionally malevelant to
steer
> people away from the Baha'i Faith.

Fred does no more than point out the current state of lunacy within
the AO.  Granted he's somewhat more extreme and adept than some others
of similar mind.

> > > > And let's face facts - you're whinging for condemnation of
> > > > Fred because he's perceived as the greatest threat to the
current
> > > > order!
> > >
> > > Hardly, Fred is an annoying troll, he is not a threat.
> >
> > So why complain?  Leave him to his own devices!
>
> Because he is an annoying troll.

Why?  Because you have no credible answer to what he posts.  The spam
and trolling could not exist unless there was a basis in fact on which
they subsist.

<SNIP>
> > > Huh?  National was very clear - thay asked if he wanted to be
off
> > > the mailing list, or the membership list, or both.  He answered
yes.
> >
> > Not acording to Fred - let's see some documentation produced to
prove
> > this assertion!
>
> The letter from National is right there on his site.  I would show
you
> the URL but I can't stand all of the pop-up adverts on his new
> provider.

Do tell that to the dear lady!  She who was told from the start has
been justifying National's decision to remove him from the rolls not
merely action his request to be removed!

> > > No I dismiss him because he doth protest too much.  What bugs me
the
> > > most id the volume of spam he posts.  The only issue that I have
> > > voiciferously opposed is Fred's claim to be a BIGS.  He is
> > > attempting to decieve and I do not like that at all.
> >
> > Put him on your kill-file and let people decide for themselves
about
> > his site and concomitant efforts!
>
> Google has no kill-file.

Poor Google!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: The bahai Taliban
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:56 PM

"Mike Strelitzer" <madmike@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3l5T7.53424$8w3.13705643@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Mike,

> Give it a rest Fred! Show me some PROOF that the uhj would murder
4000
> people and I'll MAYBE start to take your ridiculous crap seriously.
Next
> thing you'll be telling us is that some black unmarked helicopters
landed in
> your yard to try to kidnap or murder you.

I suggest that you read what Fred said and compare that body with
other and similar religious bodies in the past and in the present.  No
philosophy has been more destructive of mankind than religion - the
Taleban and Bin Laden from their interpretations of Holy Scripture
justify oppression and murder.  The uhj is not yet in a position to do
that but it condones other sad behaviour - it encorages its officials
to spy on the behaviour of adherents and discipline them for
deviations.  It condones spying on former adherents - it has blatantly
disregarded its own rules in expelling those it doesn't like.  Its
supporters here spy on private e-mail lists and hesitate not one whit
to blatantly misinterpret the results of that spying.

This is a fundamentalist religious body which has, as yet not reached
its full potential.  We are well used here in Northern Ireland to
merchants of hatred who piously dissociate themselves from acts of
violence committed by their followers - hypocrisy is the bedmate of
every true fundamentalist religious body and adherents.

> If you really have a desire to change things, why don't make an
attempt to
> start a reasonable dialogue (that's a TWO WAY conversation, if you
don't
> realize that), instead of your mouthing off on this NG.

Unfortunately Mike, it is Fred's spamming to other newsgroups that
really pisses off the AO - and it has an attitude that it will not
open discourse to settle what is called the Bahai Wars!  repeated
efforts have been made to do this and all have been rebuffed!  That is
the main reason, IMO, that the Bahai Faith has now turned the corner
into decline.  That which claims to be a unifying force for the world
cannot even reconcile and unite its own liberal wing.

>
> I've been following your posts for months now, and I find them:
>
> Hateful (Dude, I went to your website---you've got a chip on your
shoulder a
> mile wide!)

Hit the links and look at them!

> Unforgiving (Dave did publicly apologize you know!)

I agree!

> Boring (endless post after post after post after post......)

An inevitable result of the marginalisation and Fred's consequent
perceived need to keep these matters at the forefront of every
newsgroup he can hit.  This is understandable when you take into
consideration that the natural consequence of unresolved conflict is
escalation by one or both sides.

The whole situation stinks!  I think that the AO would do well to
undertake a study of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.  This
historic conflict is being resolved by compromise, negotiation, mutual
respect and tolerance and parity of esteem.

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com>
> wrote in message
news:HI3T7.28185$va.13104749@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> > The bahai Taliban
> >
> > For the record, I said and say the bahai uhj is "little better"
than the
> > WTC terrorists. That, in my reading, acknowledges they're not yet
> > quite as despicable, though I believe, given their record, it is
not
> > unlikely, at this juncture, that they'll devolve into similar
violence
> > as well. The hatred animating the person in question further
> > substantiates it.
> >
> > One may slander and lie for years about my status as a bahai,
> > write an obscenely filthy message clearly intended to discredit
> > me with unsuspecting non-bahais, manipulate AOL, distort out
> > of context my messages, and that's entirely acceptable, in
> > bahai fundamentalist quarters....
> >
> > I certainly don't believe any claims, including putative
apologies,
> > made by the person in question and who wrote this message:
> >
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f0853486.0109141001.2fd2b8c%40pos
ting.g
> > oogle.com&output=gplain
> >
> > Non-bahais might also want to look at "The Baha'i Technique":
> > https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
> >
> > --
> > FG
> > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> > https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - talk.religion.bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:17 PM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xLSS7.5347$37.797003@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> I'm suggesting that you read the writings of Baha'u'llah,
'Abdul-Baha' and
> Shoghi Effendi (I'll leave the letters from the Universal House of
Justice
> out of this for the moment), and select those passages that refer to
the
> Universal House of Justice, and that apply to the present subject.
>
> I'm inferring that you are not going to find anything that allows
> discourtesy and disrespect.

I see nothing that exempts any person body or institution from
criticism.  Now I may not do that criticism in the manner that you
expect but that's your problem that you fail to address the content of
criticism by considering only the tone in which it is made.

That perhaps is why your Faith and AO sail oblivious of tidal
conditions onto the rocks.  If you addressed the substance of the
criticism - if you as a BIGS stood up and told your beloved AO that it
has done things that stink and cry out to heaven for retribution, you
might just disarm your critics and leave them with nothing to complain
about.

Anybody ever thought of trying that new and original approach with
Fred?

I somehow don't think so!  Much easier to address his tone than what
he (or anybody else) actually says!  And that is why you BIGS are such
hypocrites!

>
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9vd6h6$esvup$4@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:D__R7.7977$Ha.1980843@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > It is my belief that many of  the comments you categorize as
> > "...have been
> > > doing so out of love for the Baha'i Faith." emanate clearly from
> > some other
> > > emotion, one that allows the poster to denounce, backbite, find
> > fault,
> > > criticize, ridicule and otherwise drag down those Baha'i men and
> > women who
> > > have served with such marvelous love, faith and devotion the
cause
> > of
> > > Baha'u'llah.
> >
> > But not competence!
>
> Your standards of what constitutes competence may not be the same as
mine.
> You may expect human beings to perform superhuman feats of
administrative
> legardmain, whereas I expect some human foibles now and then, a
little ego
> here and there, amidst the general sea of devotion and dedication.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It is not unusual for people to pick and choose passages, and
> > portions of
> > > passages that fit their own agenda.
> >
> > Yup! the AO does it all the time too!
>
> Please quote the relevant instances.
>
> >
> > >We have read here on arb/trb certain
> > > quotes, repeated repeatedly, that have been utilized in an
effort to
> > call
> > > into question the morality, ethics and devotion of the Baha'i
> > community.
> > > Schism is clearly identified in the Baha'i writings as being
> > contrary to the
> > > will of God. Backbiting, slander, lying and cynicism are among
the
> > more oft
> > > utilized tools that lead to schism.
> >
> > Yup!  That is why the AO is careening the BF towards schism!  It
has
> > already happened and will continue until all of you BIGS can a
grip on
> > the AO and control its excesses.
>
> If the Baha'i Administrative Order was propelling the Baha'i Faith
towards
> schism as you state, it would mean that Baha'is are doing this, as
in the
> Baha'i community, not some separate, independent agency (AO) as you
seem to
> suggest.
> >
> > > The vast majority of Baha'is who voted that first time around
> > expressed
> > > clearly their intent that Baha'u'llah's name not be sullied in
this
> > fashion.
> > > This puts you in opposition to the overwhelming majority of
Baha'is,
> > not the
> > > Baha'i administrative order, which did not act to prohibit
Baha'is
> > from
> > > participating, and has not since.
> >
> > And who has sullied the Cause of Baha'u'llah more than the ardent
> > supporters of the AO?
>
> How have Baha'is done this?
>
> >
> > > You are free to prove me wrong, free to quote from the writings
of
> > > Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha' and so demonstrate that an assault
on
> > the
> > > Universal House of Justice is commendable, or even permissible.
> >
> > You're telling me that it is above criticism?
>
> Baha'u'llah has something to say concerning criticism in general,
criticism
> of His Universal House of Justice, criticism of His followers.
>
> Robert A. Little
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> > >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> > > "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:9v56oc$l00$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > > Dearest Robert,
> > > >     Our perceptions of reality are considerably different.
> > > >     My experience, both on the e-mail lists with several dozen
or
> > score
> > > > subscribers, and in wider cyberspace, is that there is a
desire by
> > some
> > > > to prevent opinions at variance to their own from being
expressed.
> > It
> > > > is not a question, in this wonderful modern technology, even
of
> > having
> > > > to have your eyes sullied by the thoughts of those who
disagree
> > with you.
> > > > You can simply kill file them and delightfully imbibe what
pleases
> > you.
> > > > No, the issue is that these displeasing contradictory thoughts
are
> > so
> > > > convincing that you, and more significantly, the men now
sitting
> > on the
> > > > chairs intended for members of the Universal House of Justice,
> > would
> > > > rather no one read them.
> > > >     I have often posted to Baha'i cyberspace that you and
those
> > like you
> > > > can have your say. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
If
> > you are
> > > > indeed the majority, then let all these 900 plus naysayers
come
> > and share
> > > > with us words of wisdom and love. Surely, these will swamp all
the
> > hate
> > > > you perceive here, though honestly I don't see that hate. What
I
> > see is
> > > > honest criticism of the lot currently in power. Since they are
> > ruling
> > > > over an entity in considerable decline, such criticism is the
> > opposite
> > > > of hate. Anyone with an IQ higher than a twig's and hating
Baha'is
> > would
> > > > merely gloat silently while the inept guys in power continued
> > their dive.
> > > > Those who for years have been speaking up have been doing so
out
> > of love
> > > > for the Baha'i Faith.
> > > >                                                             To
> > Love,
> > > >
> > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Robert Little" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes:
> > > > > What happened is that Baha'is voted against it first time
> > around. On the
> > > > > last vote, most of those Baha'is who had voted against it
the
> > first time
> > > > > simply did not vote again. The remaining Baha'is who had an
> > interest in
> > > it
> > > > > voted more for it than against it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As this is a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of
Baha'u'llah
> > and His
> > > Faith,
> > > > > and as the majority of His followers who did vote that first
> > time
> > > generally
> > > > > did not want an unmoderated forum that would allow
backbiting,
> > spite,
> > > > > deceit, lies, racism, bigotry and the like to populate a
forum
> > with the
> > > name
> > > > > of the Glory of God attached; and, inasmuch as the Baha'i
Faith
> > > inculcates
> > > > > the concept of the will of the majority taking precedence
over
> > the will
> > > of
> > > > > the few, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this
> > newsgroup ought
> > > not
> > > > > to exist, reasonable to conclude that it exists more because
of
> > hatred
> > > than
> > > > > of love, reasonable to conclude that the protagonist of this
> > newsgroup
> > > did
> > > > > not wish to abide by the overwhelming wish of the Baha'i
> > community.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert A. Little
> > > > >
> > > > > "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
> > <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
> > > > > wrote in message
news:9v2c4k$cb2me$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > >> Michael,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 600+ no votes on the first interest poll. You're right that
> > > > >> people on news.groups were noticeably shocked by the
> > > > >> figure and realized something was going on. One of them
> > > > >> immediately created alt.religion.bahai in response. There's
> > > > >> a very long and complicated record of fundamentalist
> > > > >> interference in the creation of talk.religion.bahai.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For those interested, most of the relevant docs are at this
> > link:
> > > > >> https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/trbmenu.htm
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> FG
> > > > >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> > > > >> https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in
message
> > > > >> news:9v0nel$q4k$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > > >> > Hi, Pat.
> > > > >> >     Duh, have I wandered into another sliders world
again. I
> > recall
> > > some
> > > > >> > outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first
time
> > TRB was
> > > voted
> > > > >> > on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped
out on
> > finally
> > > > >> > getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory,
but
> > perhaps
> > > all
> > > > >> > these alternate universes I've passed through contributes
to
> > that. I
> > > do
> > > > >> > have the impression it took three tries before TRB got
> > through.
> > > Taking
> > > > > all
> > > > >> > three votes, including that first one with its NSA of
Iceland
> > NO
> > > vote,
> > > > > or
> > > > >> > was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more
> > Baha'is voted
> > > to
> > > > >> > prevent this first uncensored line of communication in
recent
> > Baha'i
> > > > >> > generations.
> > > > >> >
> > Thrive,
> > > > >> >
> > M.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > He has voting results which show that more Baha'is
voted
> > for TRB
> > > than
> > > > >> against
> > > > >> > > it, yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to
TRB
> > > formation.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Blessings!
> > > > >> > > - Pat
> > > > >> > > kohli@ameritel.net
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
> > Guard."
> > > > >> >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> > > >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL - Fred lies all over the internet ------->  fundamentalist spam  choking AOL bahai message boards like NNTP
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:03 PM

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C1CFC5C.B8EA57AD@ameritel.net...
> BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing wrote:
>
> > Ms. Maneck's coments are False. Rather constitutes a DOUBLE
STANDARD,
> > which is what she's doing on AOL, spamming her URL while
> > deleting my messages bringing her duplicity to attention.....
> >
> > She lied about a letter ever being on my website and is
> > lying about her deceitful conduct on AOL.
>
> You lied about your being in good standing.  You lied about your
membership
> card.  By and large, your presence on the internet is a large and
recurring
> lie.  Of course you will accuse everyone else of lying, what is
another lie to
> you?

Pat,

He has not lied about his card or his membership.  As the dear lady
has confirmed, National has never officially told him he has been
disenrolled.  In the absence of that official notification Fred is
quite within his rights to insist he is still a Bahai.  After all, any
other intimation as to his status would rank in the same category as
Pilgrims' Notes - interesting but not as binding as the genuine text!

As ever,

Dermod.

>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:22 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011214113726.25979.00000257@mb-md.aol.com...
> >
> >> Not talking to someone who has threatened to sue if you do is a
wise
> >> thing to do.
> >
> >On the contrary - it is the most foolish thing to do for that's the
> >way to wind up in Court as in New Mexico.
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> Almost any competent lawyer would disagree with you there. And it
was the
> incompetent lawyer who case got thrown out in New Mexico.

Case was thrown out of Court on basis that due to First Amendment
Court considered it could not take jurisdiction.  The substance of the
Complaint has never been addressed - that's the problem the AO has not
yet tackled or resolved. And I doubt that it ever will - in the
meantime however the mud sticks!

>  >Fred does no more than point out the current state of lunacy
within
> >the AO.  Granted he's somewhat more extreme and adept than some
others
> >of similar mind.
>
> In other words he demonstrates who the real lunatics are.

Yup!  The mindless moronic cultists in the AO!

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: The Silence of the Lambs
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 9:26 AM

"Brian Walker" <bfwalker@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:3C200C26.C3E6FDE3@net-yan.com...
Brian and Mike,
>
> Bahá'í wars are not really an issue in the world. Check out a couple
of site,
> and count for yourself. The vast majority of Bahá'ís do not
participate in the
> internet fora, but are out there "doing things".;

Bahai wars are a much more important issue than the vast majority of
BIGS are either aware of or prepared to consider.  What you see on TRB
or Talisman is a tip of the iceberg - the vocal and erudite who are
prepared to sound forth, who are either immune from AO counterforce or
prepared to defy it.  Beneath them is a growing mass of the
disaffected and plain disillusioned and bored, most of whom just
disappear.  There is much anecdotal evidence to back up that assertion
from personal experiences, through comments on other lists, to the
statistics on membership.  For example the Bahai community in Northern
Ireland was 300 strong when I joined 20 years ago - it is still 300
strong and a lot have gone through the revolving doors over those two
decades.  I think most of those who have left would broadly agree with
my analysis of what is wrong with Bahaism.

Those remaining are doing things for sure but most of those things are
internally directed with but a dim glimmer that they will attract
masses of entrants.

> those opposing the Bahá'ís
> are in 2 broad camps - "orthodox" Bahá'ís who believe in a continued
> guardianship in the form of a number of men, and "anti-AO" groups
who express
> themselves on these *.r.b and Talisman9. There are not many of them.

There are over 200 subscribed to Talisman 9 at the moment.  Karen's
"Unenrolled Bahai" has I think around 50 - who can tell how many read
TRB.  A awful lot of Bahais are on-line in the West - it is primarily
a middle class grouping of supposedly educated persons who just tend
to be the type who buy computers and go online.  Since Talisman and
TRB are viewed in certain quarters as hell writ in Java, many simply
lurk around them picking up on the threads and possibly not talking
much about them but probably influenced by them.  So the overall
effect of Bahai Wars is indeterminate.

But I have been told by people who have contacts in the right quarters
that the AO intensely deprecates and dislikes Talisman and TRB and I
deduce from the morbidity of the BIGS community and recurrent
financial difficulties that the Wars are having a deleterious effect
on the planned advance by the AO.

Take a
> look, listen, feel . See the issues involved, and make a decision.
Personally
> I think some of the points they raise are interesting, but the real
issues are
> ignored.

The essential business of war is the ability to cut through the
smokescreen of disinformation to assess the damage inflicted on the
enemy by one's operations.  That is a complicated and complex
business.  In assessing the effect of Bahai Wars on the AO one has to
learn to read the subtext.  For example the UK NSA used to publish the
names and numbers of new additions to the flock as well as the
withdrawals.  It hasn't done so for many moons past.  That is the
fact.  The speculation comes when you ask why.  But you cannot take
this one element of the equation in isolation.  If you assume the
figures are not printed because they are poor and detrimental to
morale you have to look for corroborative evidence.  Might that be
found in the recurrent financial crises, the lack of growth in the
Northern Ireland community, the lack of reports that numbers are
increasing etc.?  All of these factors have got to be combined and
assessed before one comes to an overall assessment as to the effects
of Bahai Wars on the faithful and faithless.

> Fred has been approached in a variety of methods, all of them result
in rebuff
> unless you are in agreement with him.

Fred is a problem that none of you have sussed!  Before you deal with
him it is advised that you consider his motives for doing what he
does.  It is the conventional wisdom on this group to declare that he
does what he does from motives of hatred.  That is a most serious
mistake!  Fred does what he does because he cares passionately that
his vision of the Bahai Faith has been perverted and that he has no
other means of attempting to undo that perversion.  The more this
group persists in the SPAM, SPAM, LIAR, LIAR approach the more Fred
becomes alienated and the more intense will be his campaign.  Fred
wears his heart large on his sleeve and nobody notices because the
easiest way to deal with him, apparently, is to continually denigrate
him.  It doesn't work and it doesn't take a genius to see that!

You have made him a monster and because you have made him that he will
continue to be seen to behave as such.  What is the effect of this?
Well some will see him as a monster - others will trot over and look
at his site, will study it whilst disregarding the hyperbole and may
conclude that there is compelling circumstantial evidence thereon that
there is something radically wrong within the AO!

You've made Fred a scapegoat - so long as you can blame him for his
methods you can safely discount everything substantive that he has to
say.  I don't especially like much of Fred's methodology but I'm long
enough in the tooth to discount the emotion and look at the substance.
If you do you may begin to understand the rationale behind Bahai Wars
and discern the ways in which your faith can become a potent and
relevant force.  If you don't you can watch the BF go from Spring to
Winter in less than the twinkling of Milissa's eyes!

>When it comes to an exchange
of ideas,
> speaking to people opposed to the faith, you could do worse than
listen to
> Dermod, who is as opposed as any I have seen, but has intelligence
and wit to
> back up his arguments.

The usual £5 shall be wending its way to you by snail mail as per our
agreement that you earned it when you said anything nice about me.  Of
course that remains confidential between you and me!!

>Nima (alas he has left the groups for the
>time being)
> is virulent, but backed up with sources.  Karen and Melissa are
always worth a
> read.

Dare one disagree with so cogent a point?

>
> Muddy, er.... Madman ... ah ... Moody ...ummm ... well, there a
khalifa-based,
> brain-dead, violent ex-con with penis envy who profanes the group
with his
> presence. He is good for an occasional laugh, but not for an
exchange of
> ideas.  He and Fred are well suited to each other.

Miss Maddy is undoubtedly a buffoon and a cowardly one at that as
befits a bully which he has tied to be but is not very good at!

>
> A number of posters here come from the orthodox camp. Now, Shoghi
Effendi
> described Bahá'ís as "orthodox", but in the sense used here, it
refers to the
> followers of covenant breakers. Their main interest is in proving
how much of
> the W&T was fulfilled by their respective "guardians". As the answer
is "zero"
> they are of no interest, except insofar as they demonstrate how not
to read the
> scriptures. Points made in discussion will lead back to this theme,
and as such
> most of us ignore them.

The unfortunate thing about the Remeyite split is that it has
polarised the entire Bahai community.  One either accepts there is a
living Guardian or there isn't and there is no middle ground.  That
results in extremism - on one hand the Orthodox uphold their Guardian
and brook no opposition, on the other the Haifan uphold the House as
supreme and tolerate no opposition of any kind.  This division has
stifled worthwhile research into the results of the loss of a living
Guardian and how that loss can be compensated for.  As a
counterbalance to the Orthodox Haifa has placed all power in the House
and all power corrupts.  Yet so long as the Orthodox pose a threat (or
because they do) Haifa can brook no devolution of its powers to accord
more fully with what the W&T envisaged - the Twin Pillars of the AO.

>
> So, seeker, check out the scene here. We are robust group, often
irascible,
> polarised, opinionated and vulgar. For a list of the BIGS (I mean
the real
> ones) check out Fred's hate list.

Quite incorrect, Brian - for the real hard-line, nasty, vitriolic,
venomous, vicious and self righteous BIGS trot on over to Beliefnet.
Compared to those daisies the people here are only beginners!  Even
poor old Karen has been accused there of being a Violator and Covenant
Breaker!

TRB is a robust group but remarkably civil overall considering it
flourishes without benefit of moderation.  There is nothing in the
Bahai Writings that says that argument is not to be robust - I would
indeed venture the opinion that adoption of TRB methods within the AO
would revitalise consultation for it would become wild, exciting and
interesting.  It might also become productive - nothing discourages
embryonic and immature administration more than the thought that some
blood curdling wolf who has honed his skills on TRB is going to
rampage through the Convention season and collect AO scalps on his
way!  That is the horrifying prospect that encourages the current crop
of duffers therein to so decry criticism!  Their incompetence could
result in electoral disadvantage!

One thing you soon learn about the Bahai AO is that it is composed of
lambs in wolves' clothing!  Sadly they are far from silent!  And my
thespian aspirations lead me to wannabe Hannibal (fava beans and a
nice Chianti) -  fefefefefefefeFEH!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL - Fred lies all over the internet ------->  fundamentalist spam  choking AOL bahai message boards like NNTP
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:05 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112170720.4b64ff11@posting.google.com...
Dave,
>
> > He has not lied about his card or his membership.  As the dear
lady
> > has confirmed, National has never officially told him he has been
> > disenrolled.  In the absence of that official notification Fred is
> > quite within his rights to insist he is still a Bahai.  After all,
any
> > other intimation as to his status would rank in the same category
as
> > Pilgrims' Notes - interesting but not as binding as the genuine
text!
>
>
> Were Fred to try and attend his Electoral Unit Convention he would
not
> be allowed to vote.  If any Baha'i checked his credentials they
would
> find that he is off the rolls.  It does not matter what Fred says -
> his ID is invalid.

I'm not disputing what you say!

Just tell the bastards at National to tell Fred preferably before they
tell you or the dear lady!

Dermod.

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Orthodox and Heterodox or Vice Versa
Date: Sunday, December 30, 2001 12:14 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011230043240.01059.00001283@mb-mk.aol.com...
> >
> >So he has been declared a CB without being told about it!
>
> Dermod,
>
> That I don't know, though I am looking into it now.

But you told us he had been declared a CB and he has told us he has
not been told of this - so exactly what hole are you looking into?

>
> >Geez but this proves
> >the point about Fred's not having been told either!
>
> I told you Fred wasn't informed, and I told you why.

No you told me the official reason you and the A Onions would like to
be disseminated and accepted.  The task now to hand is to come up with
a plausible excuse as to why Martin and others have not been informed.
While you're at your checking do check up on the Bennetts (remember
them? - in the fair land of Oz?) as well!

> >Any fear you could check your sources and see if I've got the
supreme
> >accolade as well -
>
> After having left the Faith twenty years ago? Sorry, Dermod you lost
your
> chance a long time ago. Martin here, did it right as he intended to
from the
> start.

I do hope you have evidence on which you base your assessment of
Martin's motives apart from the usual prejudicial mindset concerning
anybody who rejects the Haifan version.

>
> >
> >Having been privy to parts of the conversations you refer to I
would
> >advise you that Martin, in turn, was advised to take certain
> >elementary precautions in dealing with the rottweilers.
>
> Thank you for you confirmation that what I stated regarding these
machinations
> was true.

My, what colourful language from the Officer Dibble of the AO!  So we
deal with "machinations" when somebody, asked to meet with an ABM
seeks advice on how best to protect himself during such a meeting.
You do acknowledge that any BIGS summoned to such a meeting has no
right to refuse or to insist on any fair dealing; he must submit
himself to the embrace of the rottweilers without question or query.
Just exactly what I have seen at first hand - the "accused" got a
letter from the NSA telling him he had been adjudged guilty of
misbehaviour even though he had never been told he had been charged
with it, never mind acquainted with any details of the charges.

But as these are machinations are in the nature of the New World Order
we
have to accept them!

>
> >In such circumstances actions by an accused to
> >ensure accuracy can scarcely be regarded as "entrapment" other than
,
> >perhaps, by one who thinks that such accuracy is not needed.
>
> To my knowledge, he was not accused of anything at the time these
discussions
> took place.  The machinations your refer to were not responses to a
meeting
> which the ABM had already demanded, but one which Martin was
deliberately
> trying to provoke her into asking for.

Your knowledge is far from complete on this and many other matters.
The request I dealt with was one that said a meeting had been
requested by the ABM and what advice would be given regarding such.
Amongst the things suggested were - a tape recorder and/or independent
witness at the meeting to ensure that a true record was kept, that the
ABM be requested to put in writing the subject matter for such a
meeting etc.  You see - midnight calls by Counsellors, interrogations
in hotel rooms, denunciations from the Convention platform and secret
court decisions have bred an atmsphere where no sensible person,
having been requested to meet with an ABM will do other than take
elementary precautions to ensure he is not about to be stitched up.

> But you know all this.

I do, but you obviously don't!



From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it!
Date: Sunday, December 30, 2001 8:42 PM

"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c2ee28c@news.rivernet.com.au...
> "No!  It has just expelled him and not bothered to tell him!"
>
> Dermut....
> How can act like such a pratt?? Fred has been told so many times of
his
> removal that even you couldn't fathom this number. And as you start
to reply
> with he wasn't contacted directly................... Fred asked not
to be
> contacted and returned all mail.

Even a bostoon like you ought to be able to understand that until Fred
has been officially informed that he has been disenrolled he can
continue to describe himself as a BIGS.  After all you BIGS are told
only to go by the written Text and disregard everything else as akin
to pilgrims notes.

Ah! To see the administrative organ wilt in face of force majeure!

> Sounds like a vicous circle that Fred
> loves to hide in and perpetuated by you and the other Glaysher
lackies. It
> seems that Night Shadow has done his homework and you can't handle
an
> opinion that seems to be non-biased.  Maybe it's time for Freddy to
respond
> and give you a break from your general duties.

Night Shadow has just regurgitated the same crud that you BIGS have
been coming out with for decades.  As it was on Beliefnet so it is on
TRB and SRB forever and ever.

DUTIES?  Nothing to do with duties!  I'm here for the sheer enjoyment
of seeing you loonie fundies perform.  It's the best show in town!

 

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it!
Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 7:15 AM

"Graham Sorenson" <graham@fragrant.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yNQX7.90059$Wd.28774892@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3c2ee28c@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > "No!  It has just expelled him and not bothered to tell him!"
>
> You don't seem to have noticed that if they did inform him then they
would
> have gone against 'his' wishes about not contacting him in any way!
>
> A catch 22 situation perhaps?

That National determined on expelling Fred, obviously as a
disciplinary measure, is such a fundamental change in the subsistent
relationship as to warrant and justify its going against his wishes
and informing him of it.

As you note it is a Catch 22 situation and it still is so long as
National which initiated the situation does nothing to resolve it.
Until he has been officially informed that he is no longer a BIGS Fred
can quite happily and legitimately so describe himself.  National is
in the Catch 22 of its own making because it has neither the guts nor
the brains to get itself out of it - spineless wimps in other words!

Of course the same trait of not induging in correspondence was in
evidence over the New Mexico business, which still remains happily
unresolved.  But this is what inevitably happens when you treat
adherents with contempt - sooner or later one of the worms turns and
causes immense discomfort.  If you BIGS had brains you'd turf the
bunch of wimps out and replace them with people of ability but that's
difficult because you've turfed out the people with ability.

Still it's your problem and not mine!

Dermod.

> >
> > Dermut....
> > How can act like such a pratt?? Fred has been told so many times
of his
> > removal that even you couldn't fathom this number. And as you
start to
> reply
> > with he wasn't contacted directly................... Fred asked
not to be
> > contacted and returned all mail.  Sounds like a vicous circle that
Fred
> > loves to hide in and perpetuated by you and the other Glaysher
lackies. It
> > seems that Night Shadow has done his homework and you can't handle
an
> > opinion that seems to be non-biased.  Maybe it's time for Freddy
to
> respond
> > and give you a break from your general duties.
> > M
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it!
Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:47 AM

"Mike Strelitzer" <madmike@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wYTX7.153271$RP1.30933414@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Hi Mad Mike,

> What I don't see from you is ANYTHING constructive. You are like the
enraged
> bull seeing the matador, and all you want to do is charge, charge,
charge!!!
> Destroy the enemy!!! Get the bad guys!!! Kick their asses!! Bloody
their
> noses!!

Every religion has problems from time to time with its leadership as
you note and the BF is no different.  There is conflict between the
leadership and a small but extremely erudite group of dissident
liberals and absolutely no chance of rapprochement between them.  Not
that it hasn't been tried - the battlefield is laden with the cadavers
of failed efforts to engage the AO in fruitful and constructive
consultation.  At the moment and for the foreseeable future this
conflict is in its combat phase.  Strike and counter strike, blow and
counter blow is the order of the day.  In such an atmosphere any talk
of constructive measures is most definitely not on the agenda.

You may perhaps recall what happened to the constructive proposals
contained in "A Modest Proposal".  Prior to publication of this
article, whilst it was undergoing "review", its authors were
mendaciously charged with circulating it and roundly condemned at
National Convention.  The principal author was deprived of his voting
rights - his associates subsequently drummed out by an unholy
combination of kangaroo courts and midnight interrogations and the
article was denied official publication.  It says much for the power
of its ideas that some of them have been implemented - in an
organisation which denies the need for any reform.  Sadly, having so
peremptorily dismissed the authors of those reforms, the AO only
demonstrates its own moral bankruptcy and sterility of thought - it is
reduced to piracy.

You may detect from the A Onions on this and similar fora, denials
that there is anything wrong within the AO - it has no need of reform.
Such "mistakes" as may have been made are not systemic failures but
indicative only of a lack of maturity.  All organisations make
mistakes but the mature ones do not repeat them.  Sadly the AO falls
again and again into the same errors of judgement.

You would think, after the furore surounding the disenrollment of
Michael McKenney, that this would not have been repeated.  Along came
Alison Marshall - prior to her expulsion, nobody had heard of her.
Now she has become an icon of resistance, a rallying call to the
troops of opposition.  And of course we have Fred's expulsion -
proclaimed and told to everybody but Fred.  Let's also not forget the
New Mexico business where a member of the LSA complained to National
about its activities and waited two years, without response, before
wheeling it into Court.  The matter is still unresolved!  In July
last, the word was on the streets, from sources close to the AO, that
certain dissidents were to be declared Covenant Breakers.  That, of
course, led to a right donnybrook!  And so on and so forth - incident
after incident of incompetence, ignorance,

Yet in this catalogue of gross errors can you find one A Onion with
the grey matter to stand up and say - Things are not going well - it
would be of advantage to open consultation with those who feel
aggrieved?  Au contraire!  Efforts by dissidents to initiate such a
process have been continually rebuffed and ignored.  Their ideas have
been purloined but they are not welcome!

So why are you surprised that Fred acts the way he does or that there
is an absence of constructive discourse.  So long as the AO resists
any discourse there will be no flow of constructive ideas from the
dissidents.  The AO does not want discourse for that would be a real
threat to the sinecures and the patronage!  And for as long as that
continues the BF shall continue down the path of decline in terms of
numbers, finance and moral standing.  That which cannot unite its own
adherents (save by expulsion) cannot unite mankind as a whole!

You have stumbled upon this way when the conflict is in its "hot"
stage and probably about to get "hotter".  The next fifteen months
will see some major escalation of the conflict as Haifa moves to
destroy the dissidents before the next International Convention.
That's my bet on the situation!

Hopefully I'll be back in time for the hottest action!  For the fact
is that I'm off now for a time away from TRB and the rest due to
pressure of external exigencies!

As ever,

Dermod.