From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: bahai-st <bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>; BCCA <bcca-cc@bcca.org>; UHJ <secretariat@bwc.org>
Subject: Re: TRB: Suggestions received -- VERY LONG
Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 8:37 AM
The Baha'i Studies List:
Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice:
I'm forwarding this message to you because I believe the BCCA
has undermined your recent message to Roger Reini
regarding your acceptance of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups,
attacked me personally, depriving me of fundamental Bahai
rights of free speech and religious conscience. I ask that you
investigate the BCCA's motives for interferring in the Usenet
vote on talk.religion.bahai.
Permit me to say with all respect that your emphasis on
conscience and voting does not apply properly to Usenet
proposals which are actually considered merely interest
polls. This message contains a statement by Russ Allbery,
someone highly versed in Usenet procedures, who points
out such political abuse of the system by bloc voting NO
will only further tarnish the image of the Bahai Faith. As
it is not my wish to see this happen, I ask you to consider
issuing a statement that in no uncertain terms requests
that Bahais respect the worldwide voting system established
on Usenet and not subvert it by another massive bloc vote.
I shall now be periodically forwarding to you messages that
I believe might help inform you of the subversion by Bahais
of the Usenet voting system.
Respectfully,
FG
FG@hotmail.com
FG wrote in message <3472EA07.39C8@hotmail.com>...
>Chris Manvell wrote:
>>
>> My comments:
>> The version of the 2nd RFD I posted to Fred read, "All followup
>> discussion should be posted to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai."
>> This was changed slightly either by Fred, or more likely David, to read,
>> "All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religi
>> on.bahai."
>> I feel that this follows the spirit of Usenet by emphasising the role
>> of news.groups as the PRIME place for discussion. We cannot stop
>> discussion in other areas but, strictly speaking, it should also go to
>> NG.
>
>By David Lawrence. He made a few other minor ones for technical
>reasons.
>
>> How about changing the second sentence to read, "The newsgroup will be
>> part of the talk.* hierarchy, which has to date been used most commonly
>> for unmoderated groups." Anyone come up with a better suggestion that
>> can be put in one sentence of less than 2 lines?
>
>The change is fine with me.
>
>> However, although this might buy more votes, I am rather uncomfortable
>> about using a message from the House to "sell" a product. Certainly it
>> should be taken into account, but I feel that it would be using the
>> House unethically to put it in the RFD. The message is available for
>> all to read on my web site at <www.baha.demon.co.uk/trb-uhj.htm>.
>
>I agree with you. The message can be reposted any time anyone
>desires to do so.
>
>> >Ginger Glaser wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This group is for open discussion of issues realting to the Baha'i
>> >> faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the Baha'i Church. (my
>> >> apologies if I chose the incorrect term)
>>
>> Fred wrote
>> >Well, maybe you have a good point. We don't use the word church.
>> >No problem. Just Bahai Faith will do it though. Ginger's sentence
>> >seems hard to make sense.... I'm willing to go with it. Chris, what
>> >you think? Others?
>>
>> I like it. Perhaps "...in any way by any Institution of the Baha'i
>> Faith"? May be a little hard for non-Baha'is to grasp though.
>> "Baha'i Faith" would be fine by me. I think it would be a great
>> addition. Good idea Fred.
>>
>> My comments: I am all for it. I suggest that anyone reading the group
>> would get to know about the Institutions pretty quickly.
>> I will add: "This group is for open discussion of issues relating to
>> the Baha'i Faith, and is not endorsed in any way by the any of the
>> Institutions of the Faith." to the RFD.
>
>As an unmoderated newsgroup, it ought to be obvious and self-evident
>to anyone that by definition the postings do not represent institutional
>opinion. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept Ginger's passage with
>light emendation of "Church" to "Baha'i Faith." I will veto any
>language, for historical reasons, that include the phrasing not
>endorsed in any way "by any institution of the Baha'i Faith." I should
>be forthright about why. The author of those words threatened to
>rmgroup alt.religion.bahai shortly after it was created by Jonathan
>Grobe, and I won't accept a single word from him in the RFD.
>Ginger's passage should be used only after carefully comparing it
>for similar language in the RFD/charter for soc.religion.bahai.
>Compromise requires both sides meet half way. It's time for
>others to show they can be conciliatory too....
>
>> Chris on FAQ:
>> Also it must be of such a nature that it cannot be used as a
>> whipping post for any poster, Baha'i or non-Baha'i. The FAQ, if there
>> is one, could be totally independant of any disclaimer, the latter being
>> very short and quickly read.
>>
>> Roger Reini attempted a FAQ in early August. It was soundly rejected
>> by people other than myself as biased. I'm against an official FAQ,
>> though people may post one to the newsgroup any time they wish after
>> it's passed.
>
>In terms of a disclaimer, I would like the following sentence to follow
>immediately after Ginger's: "This disclaimer is not intended to be used
>as a 'whipping post,' by or against Bahais or non-Bahais, after the
>passing of the RFD." This sentence would address my concern that such
>an intention lies behind the desire for a disclaimer.
>
>Chris wrote:
>> > Even if TRB does not
>> >make it, I feel that things have improved considerably this time round.
>
>Why should the RFD not make it? There are no valid and honest reasons
>for voting NO.
>
>At this point, I believe that claiming anything in or out of the RFD
>as a valid reason for voting NO is untenable. The only reason anyone
>might still be considering to vote NO remains one of political and
>religious passion against the expression of other people's
>consciences.
>
>I believe the posting statistics should remain as is up to October 20,
>1997, the day the 1st RFD was posted. That would avoid including
>in the count discussion that took place in news.groups.
>
>On behalf of myself and Chris, if he is in agreement, I would like
>to invite Sharon Bouchard, Ron House, and Michael McKenny to
>be proponents, if they're willing. I think the offer always stands too
>to Guy Macon and Russ Allbery. Each proponent would have veto
>power over any changes to the RFD, which would then remain as
>is--that is, either the status quo, or unanimous agreement. If it's
>good enough for the UN, it's good enough for me....
>
>It seems to me that all the little changes to the RFD are really
>substitute agruments for the underlying adversion of many Bahais
>against speech they can't control.... It was for such reasons that
>I added to the 2nd RFD "Readers are asked to observe standard . . .
>voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its
>creation." I now think this should be emphasized even more so.
>I would therefore like to include the following passage by Russ
>Allbery in the RFD immediately after that sentence, if he does
>not mind:
>
>"There is no official "list of acceptable reasons for voting." Nothing
>of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
>the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
>certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
>voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
>the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
>voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
>assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
>the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
>*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. This would,
>however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) amongst those
>people who followed the proposal as a religion that advocates
>censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and the
>Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
>(Message-ID: <m3pvo9ggjh.fsf_-_@windlord.Stanford.EDU>)
>
>I also urge Roger Reini, Sharon Bouchard, and Chris Manvell to share
>this passage by Russ, with his permission, with Bahais on
>Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. It should greatly aid the augmentation
>of their understanding of Usenet voting.
>
>It seems to me that the following revision to the 2nd RFD might be
>reconsidered against Henrietta Thomas' version of it: "Readers are
>asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or
>prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and
>threads written in more moderate terms." I do not have her original,
>never compared this draft to it, feel uneasy about it, and yet have not
>had the chance to search for it on www.dejanews.com.
>
>Ultimately, it seems to me, tinkering with the RFD, like the making
>of books, has no end....
>
>--
>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/rfd2.htm>
-
To switch to the digested list,
send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body
-
unsubscribe bahai-st
subscribe bahai-st-digest
Homepage
|