From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: Mark A. Foster <owner@sociologist.com>; talisman <talisman@umich.edu>; UHJ <secretariat@bwc.org>
Subject: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
Date: Sunday, December 21, 1997 11:23 AM
Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice:
Thank you for your email response of 19 December 1997.
I have carefully read and considered it. I am concerned that
it does not evince an understanding of the unusual nature of
Usenet interest polling but seems to think of it as though it
were a normal democratic national election of some sort.
With all respect and humility, permit me to say that your repeated
emphasis on conscience fails to take into account the fact that
Bahais actually did deprive other people, Bahais and non-Bahais,
of the rights of their own consciences during the last massive NO
vote and will be doing so again if they vote NO a second time.
Every indication suggests that Bahais are about to make the same
mistake. I am concerned that your response to me, as your earlier
response to Mr. Roger Reini, may be misconstrued by such Bahais
as giving your blessing to them, condoning their onslaught against
talk.religion.bahai, as have the repeated interference and intrigues
of the Co-ordinating Committe for the Bahai Computer and
Communication Association (BCCA).
I ask you to consult with a Bahai who is actually well versed in
the subtleties of Usenet interest polling, not "voting" in the
everyday sense of the word. I suggest Roger Reini,
(rreini@wwnet.com) to whom you allude.
I ask you to reflect on these words by a highly respected non-Bahai,
Russ Allbery, much involved with Usenet newsgroup creation,
on the general consensus that exists on reasons for voting:
"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@windlord.Stanford.EDU>)
Because Bahais have already abused the interest polling system,
analogous to what Baha'u'llah denounced in the Kitab-I-Aqdas as
the "destruction of books," electronic books or magazines in this
context, and appear about to do so again, actually smashing or
keeping the printing press switch from being turned on, I appeal to
you once more to attempt to understand the nature of the system
governing Usenet and to provide fundamentalist Bahais with the
guidance they apparently need in order to allow other people the
sanctity of their own God-given consciences, and a forum within
which to express themselves.
I appeal to you to do what is in the best interest of the Bahai
Faith.
I can't imagine how the interest polling can possibly proceed in
a just and fair manner without your mastering the difficult issues
involved and rendering further guidance to Bahais.
With sincere and heartfelt respect for your office,
FG
FG@hotmail.com
Homepage
|