From: FG <fglaysh@hotmail.com>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Cc: house@usq.edu.au <house@usq.edu.au>; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:43 AM
SOME KIND OF WEIRD CODE THING IS FAILING TO PUT
IN THE ">" FOR THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. SORRY TO
HAVE TO USE CAPS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Pierce <PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu>
To: fglaysh@hotmail.com <fglaysh@hotmail.com>; talisman@umich.edu
<talisman@umich.edu>
Cc: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>;
house@usq.edu.au <house@usq.edu.au>
Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 4:12 PM
Subject: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
Mr. Glaysher,
This is really becoming rather tedious in its repetition. I find your
opinions about the communications from the BWC to be so wildly
speculative as to be of very little value, and they continue to make
it difficult to stomach the possibility of supporting t.r.b.
SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY....
For anyone that saw the original "pro-t.r.b." question that was put to
the Universal House of Justice, it was obvious that the reply from the
BWC neither supported nor opposed t.r.b., and they had no intent to
send a coded "anti-t.r.b." message. Given the fact that the tone of
the question was "pro-t.r.b.", the fact that the BWC declined to warn
the questioner away from a "pro-t.r.b." opinion could easily been seen
as implicit support of the legitimacy some "pro-t.r.b." views.
NOT SO OBVIOUS AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.... IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT MANY BAHAIS, ON BAHAI-DISCUSS AND ELSEWHERE,
HAVE TAKEN THE UHJ'S MESSAGE AS A CODED NOD TO
ATTACK WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE NO VOTE....
Your attempts to over-interpret the message from the BWC in order to
drum up support for a forum that will allow you to gain a wider
audience for your frequently abusive and paranoid excesses and
fanaticisms is discouraging.
I AM REACTING TO THE MANNER IN WHICH MANY BAHAIS
HAVE INTERPRETED THE UHJ'S MESSAGE. I HAVE TRIED
NOT TO INTERPRET IT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU YOURSELF
INTERPRET IN EXTENSIVELY IN THIS MESSAGE. I DON'T BELIEVE
SUCH CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSTINGS ARE FAIR....
INCIDENTALLY, I DO NOT WANT AN UNMODERATED FORUM
FOR MYSELF ALONE, THOUGH MANY HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT
APPEAR AS SUCH. RATHER, FOR ALL BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS,
AS MADE CLEAR IN THE RFD....
As far as I know, you have provided *NO* coherent supporting analysis
from any scholars in Baha'i studies (or other sources, etc.) as to the
legitimacy of the use of the "book burning" comparison. I get the
impression that you have discovered an emotionally laden issue that
you have decided to use to flog your real or supposed opponents in the
Baha'i community with (rather than explore consultatively).
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE BOOK BURNING ANALOGY
IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ONE OF THE TEACHINGS
TO COVER A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF REVELATION.... NO
FLOGGING INTENDED.... RATHER, AN APT COMPARISON
FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE LAST
MASSIVE NO VOTE (691 REMEMBER) THAT DEPRIVED
BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS THE CHANCE TO CREATE AND
READ TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI.....
I am also confused by the manner in which you consider the Usenet
system to be analogous to some near-sacred social institution or
democractic governmental entity. The nuances and minutae of the
interest polling mechanism for newsgroup creation is something that
you should hardly expect Baha'i institutions to gloriously advocate
or become immersed in, especially given the loose "enforcement" of a
voluntary set of ideas in such a chaotic and decentralized
environment.
BAHA'U'LLAH TEACHES WE SHOULD RESPECT THE LAWS
OF ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS OF GOVERNING.... DO YOU
ADVOCATE OTHERWISE? MANY, MANY INTERENT MANUALS
HAVE PUBLISHED THE USENET CONSENSUS ON INTEREST
POLLING AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO VOTES ARE AN
ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM. AS A BAHAI, WHY ARE YOU NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT BAHAI ABUSE OF INTEREST POLLING?
USENET VOTING IS NOT THE CHAOS YOU MAKE IT OUT
TO BE. RUSS ALLBERY'S PASSAGE IN THE RFD MAKES
THAT QUITE CLEAR. HE IS INCIDENTALLY A MEMBER OF
THE USENET VOLUNTARY VOTETAKERS (UVV).
IF BAHAIS WERE DESTROYING AND ATTACKING THE
NEXT NATIONAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHOULD THE INSTITUTIONS BE CONCERNED?
I HUMBLY THINK SO....
While some of the consensus-driven aspects of the Usenet system are
probably laudible in their democratic underpinnings, there are many
other aspects of Usenet that are hardly compatible with Baha'i ideals
of enlightened social/ethical systems.
SO IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION TO UNDERMINE IT? BY ANALOGY,
SHOULD BAHAIS BOMB AND DESTROY OTHER
SOCIAL STRUCTURES THEY DISAGREE WITH OR THINK
INCOMPATIABLE WITH BAHAI IDEALS? LOGICALLY EXTENDED,
SUCH THINKING AMONG BAHAIS WORRIES ME A GREAT
DEAL....
I hope I have been as clear as possible that the problems I have
identified above seem counter-productive to a balanced "pro-t.r.b."
agenda, and are obstacles to bringing about a positive acceptance of
the legitimacy of an unmoderated usenet Baha'i forum.
ARE YOU ADVOCATING VOTING NO? SUCH A VOTE
WOULD BE ANOTHER DISGRACE FOR THE BAHAI FAITH
AND WOULD DO MORE TO HARM ITS REPUTATION, AS
RUSS ALLBERY POINTS OUT IN THE RFD, THAN ANYTHING
THAT COULD EVER BE SAID ON TRB....
Feel free to further distribute or post responses elsewhere, but
if doing so, please remove Mr. Shuette's name/address (unless he has
instructed otherwise).
Eric D. Pierce
(home email: EPierce@ns.net)
Sacramento, California - USA
cc: talisman@umich.edu,
"Chris Manvell" <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>,
"Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6 Jan 98 at 7:08, FG wrote:
> From: "FG" <fglaysh@hotmail.com>
> To: "talisman" <talisman@umich.edu>
> Copies to: "UHJ" <secretariat@bwc.org>
> Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
> Date sent: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:08:06 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette <schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu>
> To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
>
>
> >Fred Glaysher wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that
> >>> it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's
> >>> piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to
> >>> them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and
> >>> made it appear a normal type of election voting.
> >
> >Don C commented:
> >>And perhaps they believe they have more important topics to consult on.
[WS:]
> >And I'll add:
> >
> >In any case, Fred's request is not internally consistent. The UHJ has
> >taken a hands-off, let everyone decide for themselves what to do
position,
> >which seems exactly what Fred wanted. What MORE does he want, now?
[FG:]
> I don't believe the UHJ has taken a "hands-off" position. The entire
> notion of conscience is inappropriate to an interest poll. They entered
> the discussion and have now affected it, for some, if not many, and
> I would think it only reasonable to ascertain whether or not they truly
> understand what they are doing.... I don't believe so.... It appears to
> me they must have been misinformed. Their counsel of "conscience"
> is actually tantamount to supporting voter fraud, in, let's say, a
> national election in Canada or the United States.... I don't believe
> the UHJ would or should do such a thing. Ergo, I assume someone
> in the Secretariat failed them or they received flawed advice on
> the nature of Usenet interest polling--notice, not "voting."
[WS:]
> >If the UHJ took a position FOR the newsgroup, wouldn't that be precisely
> >the sort of "politically" motivated and centrally-sponsored group voting
> >that he's been criticizing so vehemently for months as inappropriate or
> >criminal?
[FG:]
> I am not advocating that the UHJ should take a position FOR
> talk.religion.bahai. Rather, that they not take a position AGAINST
> trb, which they have, I hope, inadvertently done.... Their "conscience"
> is, by the way, against the consciences of many others, Bahai and
> non-Bahai.... If one fully understands interest polling, it is reminiscent
> of the hatred and passion that often animates old world politics and
> religious intrigues.... 100+ people cannot honestly and fairly be
> denied their right to form a newsgroup within which to express their
> consciences. Baha'u'llah's injunction against the "destruction of
> books" fits this context quite well.... To suppress trb would be
> tantamount to a violation of his stricture in the Kitab-i-Aqdas....
> If the UHJ knowingly chooses to do that, fine, it may.... But I hope
> for better....
[WS:]
> >Call the vote, already. If it loses, wait 6 months, prove TRB has value
> >with a longer track record, and call another vote. I just can't believe
> >that all this endless jockeying around is accomplishing anything useful.
[FG:]
> Why would it lose? On what basis? Political and religious passion
> and opposition are illegitimate reasons for voting NO. Over 5,000
> postings to alt.religion.bahai is more than sufficient proof that
> 100+ people are interested in creating a newsgroup on the subject,
> as are the over 1,200 different threads and over 513 different
> individuals who posted up to October 1997. I can't believe all the
> endless opposition to free speech and conscience that many
> Bahais have displayed.... If the UHJ opposes trb, it should come
> out in the open and say so, not pretend it's neutral by employing
> strategems to justify and excuse the NO votes of fundamentalist
> Bahais.... Again, I hope for better and will cc this message to
> the UHJ to help them understand the nature of Usenet interest
> polling....
>
> >Wade
>
> FG
> UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
> The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
> news.announce.newgroups, or at <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Pierce
Information Technology Consultant
Client-Server Database/PC Network Server
Student Services
Lassen Hall 1008
California State University, Sacramento
Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA
desk phone (916) 278-7586
internet email: PierceED@csus.edu
la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homepage
|