From: r_wagner@foma.wsc.mass.edu[SMTP:r_wagner@foma.wsc.mass.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 1998 9:18 PM
To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: Oppositionist literature
*The Baha'i Studies List*
A search of the New York Public Library catalog returns
the following titles under the heading Baha'i Faith --
Controversial literature (a subject heading meaning
hostile literature).
1.Adwa ala al-Bahaiyah : al-fikr wa-al-aqidah
: [hiwar bayna Muslim wa-Baha(1985)
2.Adwa wa-haqaiq ala al-Babiyah, al-Bahaiyah,
al-Qadiyaniyah / Aminah Muham(1984)
3.Bahai / Francis Beckwith.(1985)
4.al-Bahaiyah : wasail wa-ghayat / Taha
al-Dusuqi.(1985)
5.Haqiqat al-Bahaiyah / Mustafa Mahmud.(1985)
6.Khatamiyat va pasukh bih sakhtahha-yi
Bahaiyat / ba mulhaqqat va zamayim-i tazah(1978)
7.Maa zaim al-Bahaiyah : istidrajuhu wa-kashf
khitatihi wa-fadh amrih / Mahmud.(1987)
8.Miftah Bab al-abwab. Persian. 1980([198-?])
9.al-Nihlah al-laqitah : al-Babiyah
wa-al-Bahaiyah : tarikh wa-wathaiq / Abd
al-Mu(1989)
10.al-Qadyaniyah wa-al-Bahaiyah / li-Muhammad
al-Khidr Husayn ; jamaahu wa-haqqaqah(1975)
11.Qiraah fi wathaiq al-Bahaiyah / Aishah Abd
al-Rahman (Bint al-Shati).(1986)
12.al-Radd ala al-Bahaiyin fi daw al-manhaj
al-lughawi / talif Muhammad Abd(1986)
Observations: 9 titles in Arabic, 2 in Persian, and
only 1 in English! It occurred to me that we in the
West are aware of Islamic attacks on the Baha'i Faith,
but quite unfamiliar with the specifics of their
arguments.
Over to you:
Can someone provide translations of the Arabic and
Persian titles?
Is anyone familiar with the arguments presented in
these books?
Ralph Wagner
-
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
----------
From: Snoop81485[SMTP:snoop81485@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 1998 12:09 AM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Re:RFD:talk.religion.bahai
I'm writing using my own screen name now. But I was the one posting the message
about talk.religion.bahai and about how a forum including both mainstream
Baha'is and Covenant-breakers would be helpful to the general Internet public.
Unfortunately, I forgot what I wrote you using the screen name MusMan1@aol.com!
Was it the same as what I posted to news.groups?
Robin Peters
Snoop81485@aol.com
tx200@juno.com (my preferred email address)
Rosewell97@juno.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:19 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34ac83a2.4107456@news.wwa.com>...
>
>Now comes the hard part......
>
>>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>>Baha'i faith.
>>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>>
>>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>>or any other faith....
>>
>>I suggest:
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>>including the Bahai Faith.
>>
>>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>>trb should have one....
>
>[snip].....
>
>>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>>would be:
>>
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>>religion.
>>
>>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>>reference for this.
>
>I think you are getting much closer to a real compromise on this.
>That is good. Try different combinations of the above ideas until
>you and your co-proponents come up with something you can all
>agree on.
I'm willing to compromise.... I don't see any reason to be
inflexible on this passage or any other....
>
>[snip].... no argument with your other points.
>
>Henrietta
Thanks again!
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34ac83a2.4107456@news.wwa.com>...
>
>Now comes the hard part......
>
>>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>>Baha'i faith.
>>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>>
>>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>>or any other faith....
>>
>>I suggest:
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>>including the Bahai Faith.
>>
>>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>>trb should have one....
>
>[snip].....
>
>>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>>would be:
>>
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>>religion.
>>
>>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>>reference for this.
>
>I think you are getting much closer to a real compromise on this.
>That is good. Try different combinations of the above ideas until
>you and your co-proponents come up with something you can all
>agree on.
I'm willing to compromise.... I don't see any reason to be
inflexible on this passage or any other....
>
>[snip].... no argument with your other points.
>
>Henrietta
Thanks again!
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.zoroastrian
Poster wrote in message <683r1q$j0n$1@ha2.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
> The reason I proposed an "unmoderated" newsgroup was because :
>
> 1) I do not believe in censorship.
> 2) I for one do not have the time to moderate it.
How about changing the hierarchy to TALK.religion.zoroastrian?
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>In article <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>>After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the
>>proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need
>>for an unmoderated group.
Jonathan Grobe wrote...
>The proponent did not create alt.religion.bahai; I did (based on the
>significant number of Yes votes it was clear to me that there was
>enough interest to support a group).
Let me just mention the last vote was 157 YES to 691 NO and
express again my thanks to Jonathan Grobe for creating
alt.religion.bahai which gave people a place to talk about their
concerns and interests from April 1, 1997 to October '97.
Since April 1st, more than 5,000 messages have now been
posted to alt.religion.bahai....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:42 AM
To: musman1@aol.com
Subject: Fw: 3rd RFD sent to David Lawrence
Here's your message to me. I never saw it posted to news.groups so I
suppose it was strictly private email. I think it would help a lot for
others,
Bahais and non-Bahais, to hear your views.... Too often I'm the lone
voice with only an occasional person sharing their experiences with
the Bahai Faith.....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: MusMan1 <musman1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, December 27, 1997 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD sent to David Lawrence
>Thanks for putting an RFD for talk.religion.bahai in.
>I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the face of
consistent
>censorship.
>One of the reasons why I left the faith is that there was consistent peer
>pressure to do as we were told. I can understand being told outright to do
>something; once it's out in the open, I can accept or reject that without
>feeling like an immature baby. People understand that perhaps obeying open
>orders might violate one's conscience. But subtle peer pressure to
conform -
>when you don't even know you're being pressured to do so - is what gives me
the
>willies. I am afraid that mainstream Baha'is might be subtly coerced to
violate
>their consciences (not to mention unwritten Internet policy, which is
actually
>written explicitly in many Internet books for newbies) and "stack the deck"
or
>"vote Chicago style - early and often" against talk.religion.bahai.
>Thanks again.
>Robin Peters
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:59 AM
To: Dale Grider
Subject: Re: Fireside/ Christian perspective considered
Since I'm reading your first installment, incidentally, it occurs
to me, have you mentioned your site on talk.religion.misc?
I would think many people over there might find it interesting....
Bahais have been posting there for a long time, on and off,
myself for much of 1997.... As a largely Christian readership,
trm might provide a lot of perceptive and sympathetic readers.
Best wishes,
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Grider <howdybud@bellsouth.net>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:07 AM
Subject: Fireside/ Christian perspective considered
>Dear Baha'i brother,
> The Fireside Letters is a website of vital importance to the Baha'i
>mandate to "independently investigate" for truth. In its present "book"
>type format it will admitedly involve the patience of a true seeker
>willing to spend the time to read it. I am certainly open for
>suggestions that might improve the palatability of the very important
>information that is there. But I suppose I have expected that Baha'is,
>more than most, should be expected to be hungry do absorb and digest any
>information that helps clarify their perspective.This seems a vital part
>of Baha'i belief. Thoroughly legitimate study in any investigation that
>is genuine, actually rests more critically upon full consideration of
>opposing viewpoints and perspectives than it does confirming ideas. One
>must be able to consider how opposing concepts might, or might not,
>genuinely bear upon one's present level of understanding and belief.
>Then one can honestly grow in understanding from a genuinely informed
>vantage point. The old saying is that one can "miss the forest for the
>trees". One can be too close and involved in what one assumes to be true
>making one's willingness to step back and see ideas in a larger context
>absolutely critical.
> I would think, at any rate, that the introduction at the beginning of
>volume 1 would be enough of a "teaser" to get the spiritual seeker
>interested. For myself, the reading takes off if one can just get
>started (that is, if one has a genuine interest in the considerations
>and issues that face the Baha'i adherent as he or she confronts the
>Christian perspective.) But how could a Baha'i be anything less than
>anxiously interested in such consideration? As the bedrock dogma exists
>within Baha'i theology that all major religions are really the same at
>their root level and differences are either only trivial or illusory
>("seeming" as Baha'i writers allege), then the Fireside Letters exist as
>an imperative consideration, whether in a passively "easy" format, or
>one that takes some work and reading.
> Perhaps the person visiting the site could be advised to copy and paste
>volumes into their Word Processing application to be printed out or read
>at leisure off line? I have often done this in many instances with
>lengthy Baha'i writings like Some Answered Questions, and Gleanings from
>the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The library I have built in my own "search"
>for truth consists as much or more of opposing viewpoints that I have
>worked through as affirming ones. Through facing and investiagting such
>considerations comes true growth. Another cliche' that comes to mind
>says something about the wasted energy of "preaching to the choir"
>(those already of like mind who will not provide the opportunity for you
>to test your ideas).
> Please reconsider spending some time reading through the volumes. I
>know that you will discover some considerations that have never occured
>to you (and didn't to me either until the engaging discussion that is
>the Fireside Letters transpired).
> In another vein I am interested in further critical input from Baha'is
>and have every expectation that editing and growth toward clarity of the
>Baha'i perspective can come from input from folks like yourself. In that
>sense my invitiation is one that provides the Baha'i community a chance
>to shape to some extent just what the Fireside Letters consists of. My
>search for truth is certainly still evolving.
> Please refer others to the site and invite them as well to offer
>critical feedback which will be taken in a spirit of peace and the quest
>for truth.
>
>The URL for the Firside Letters is;
>
>https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht
ml
>
>Thanks,
>Dale:)
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 12:11 PM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai?
It seems there has to be a 4th RFD to clarify the "disclaimer"
passage and a few other minor details....
I'd like to finish discussion of the 4th RFD in a week or so,
post it to news.announce.newgroups, and then after, I believe,
the required 7 days, is it, send in the Questionnaire. Since
it may take the UVV two or three weeks to assign a Vote
Taker, interest polling on trb might very well not start until
late January or early February even under the best of
conditions....
Any suggestions for the 4th RFD? Please make them
as soon as possible, or forever hold your peace, as they
say....
Can anyone confirm that only 7 days are required for
a waiting period on a 4th RFD before sending in a
Questionnaire?
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 12:11 PM
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai?
It seems there has to be a 4th RFD to clarify the "disclaimer"
passage and a few other minor details....
I'd like to finish discussion of the 4th RFD in a week or so,
post it to news.announce.newgroups, and then after, I believe,
the required 7 days, is it, send in the Questionnaire. Since
it may take the UVV two or three weeks to assign a Vote
Taker, interest polling on trb might very well not start until
late January or early February even under the best of
conditions....
Any suggestions for the 4th RFD? Please make them
as soon as possible, or forever hold your peace, as they
say....
Can anyone confirm that only 7 days are required for
a waiting period on a 4th RFD before sending in a
Questionnaire?
--
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>
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:03 AM
To: FG
Cc: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
FG wrote:
>
> NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
> its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
> trb should have one....
If I were you I would not agree to include this disclaimer.
This seems to me a point of principle, that Usenet groups
are ALWAYS public property, and to hint otherwise is to
infer that there is some doubt, even if the clause is there
to deny the doubt. I accept that the Baha'i Faith is full
of nervous willies who can't boil a pot of tea without
saying "It's only _my_ opinion that tea tastes good, it's
not a teaching of the Faith", but there IS a limit to how
much f***ing about the rest of us should be expected to do
to keep them happy. Usenet groups are public property,
paid for by an assortment of public and commercial
benefactors, and to imply that _any_ Usenet group even
might be private property is beyond the pale.
However, Fred, whatever you decide is OK by me.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:47 AM
To: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: TRB participants only - Change of address
Is your new address working? Let me know for sure...
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris <Chris@breacais.demon.co.NO_UCEuk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai
Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 3:32 PM
Subject: TRB participants only - Change of address
>Dear friends,
>
>Just a short note (posted blind) to say that my e-mail address has
>changed and is now <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>. Mail sent to my old
>address is currently not being received but is being stored by my IAP
>pending my getting multiple access sorted out on my system. If anyone
>has sent me anything in the last 6 hours (it is now 2030GMT) please can
>you retransmit it to the new address.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317
>Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai
>--
>NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing.
>Go to <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm> to read the REVISED RFD for
>talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:53 AM
To: Robin M Peters
Subject: Re: third RFD on talk.religion.bahai
Post this to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai, if you have
access to the alt.* hierarchy....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin M Peters <tx200@juno.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: third RFD on talk.religion.bahai
>I'm replying to your recent email to MusMan1@aol.com, using my Juno
>account for a change (just because I feel like it).
>You have a point; although many Baha'is are sincere in their beliefs, I
>find the vast majority of my former Baha'i compadres to be somewhat
>easily led by the NSA and worry about them for that reason. I mean, the
>NSA could tell them that the moon is made of green cheese, and they'd
>believe it. I don't mean to backbite - I'm sorry if it comes off that way
>(I don't like to spread rumors any more than the next person, any more
>than I like being the subject of false rumors) - but it seems to me
>almost a fact of the universe that many Baha'is give up their critical
>thinking skills when it comes time to examine the holy writings of their
>faith or the dictates of their relevant NSA. That's why I think
>talk.religion.bahai is so valuable. And that's why I decided to say what
>I did about bringing out the vote, Chicago style (believe me, I am a
>native of suburban Chicago - a lifelong native at that - and I feel I
>know whereof I speak!).
>Robin Peters
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 8:01 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Ron,
I entirely agree with you in principle but the worry has been
that many Bahais will vote NO if a disclaimer isn't in the
RFD. Many have said so on bahai-discuss and on news.groups.
Most news groupies have thought the passage is meaningless
and harmless enough that it should be included if it "buys" some
votes. I've cynically, I suppose, adopted that attitude, perhaps
to my discredit.... Why don't you mention this online on news.groups
to test the waters and see what the present attitudes are?
Also, it seems to me the disclaimer is becoming so general
that I even worry about less and less.... I'm increasingly of the
mind to stick it in and forget it and get the vote rolling....
Ron, you've got a full veto around here and if you really feel
strongly about this you can use it. Do so online though so
that everyone hears it straight from you....
Chris, where are you at these days on this one?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>>
>> NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>> its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>> trb should have one....
>
>If I were you I would not agree to include this disclaimer.
>This seems to me a point of principle, that Usenet groups
>are ALWAYS public property, and to hint otherwise is to
>infer that there is some doubt, even if the clause is there
>to deny the doubt. I accept that the Baha'i Faith is full
>of nervous willies who can't boil a pot of tea without
>saying "It's only _my_ opinion that tea tastes good, it's
>not a teaching of the Faith", but there IS a limit to how
>much f***ing about the rest of us should be expected to do
>to keep them happy. Usenet groups are public property,
>paid for by an assortment of public and commercial
>benefactors, and to imply that _any_ Usenet group even
>might be private property is beyond the pale.
>
>However, Fred, whatever you decide is OK by me.
>
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 7:23 AM
To: Snoop81485
Subject: Re: Access to alt.religion.bahai
Thanks for mentioning AOL. During the last year nearly a dozen
people have told me they were unable to access arb through it.
With its huge number of subscribers, AOL really should be
offering it. I hope you're successful!
Incidentally, if you post to news.groups, with a crosspost to
arb, your message will appear on both....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Snoop81485 <Snoop81485@aol.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:18 PM
Subject: Access to alt.religion.bahai
>AOL allows me access to the alt.* heirarchy; I am subscribed, for example,
to
>alt.tv.x-files.
>The problem I am having is that AOL does not consider alt.religion.bahai to
be
>a valid newsgroup; I understand that this is a common problem among
Internet
>servers - each ISP allows only limited access to newsgroups, and it is not
>unusual to be denied access to a valid newsgroup solely because the ISP
does
>not consider it valid. I have made AOL aware of the problem, and I hope to
be
>allowed to access alt.religion.bahai soon.
>Hope this helps!
>Robin Peters
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:08 AM
To: talisman
Cc: UHJ
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
-----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.
>
>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?
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."
>
>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?
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....
>
>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.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:17 AM
To: talisman
Cc: hart@lycosemail.com
Subject: Re: Catch-22 in Faith
-----Original Message-----
From: hart@lycosemail.com <hart@lycosemail.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 5:18 PM
Subject: Catch-22 in Faith
Scott S. Hart wrote:
> During my time as a Baha'i, I saw potential converts lied to by Baha'is
regarding the >membership of the Faith. The Baha'is, especially the Baha'i
leadership, have always >grossly inflated the 'official' numbers in order to
present an inaccurate picture to the >world (as well as to individuals
considering conversion) and to make the Faith seem >much more successful and
influencial than it really is. The Faith is really a 'footnote' >religion,
in my view, and all the peace/race unity statements and p. r. in the world
will >not change this.
You cite the figure of 30,000 to 80,000. How or why do you estimate
the true figures are this low? If they've been inflated, how does that
help the Bahai Faith?
>
> I do not know how to solve the above problem, except to be completely
honest and >open to the public and to people who may be interested in the
Faith. It does little >good to 'hide' things regarding the Faith that may
be unpleasant or misunderstood, >intending to reveal these things later when
the new Baha'i has been in the Faith for a >few years. If people feel that
they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will >leave or become
disenchanted. Believe me, I observed this phenomenon over and >over during
my years as a Baha'i.
Can you share a few examples?
>
> These are just some friendly observations from someone who is familiar
with Baha'i matters. Wishing everyone the best. Shalom. Scott
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:45 AM
To: talisman; Chris Manvell; Ron House
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
It's getting hard to remember who wrote and revised:
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
I'd like to use this passage for the "disclaimer."
Any objections or comments? If Bahais don't really care about
this statement any more, we could just drop it, as Ron House,
a co-proponent, has suggested to me in email.... If you care
about this, please speak up and make your views known....
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:45 AM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
It's getting hard to remember who wrote and revised:
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
I'd like to use this passage for the "disclaimer."
Any objections or comments? If Bahais don't really care about
this statement any more, we could just drop it, as Ron House,
a co-proponent, has suggested to me in email.... If you care
about this, please speak up and make your views known....
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Rick Schaut wrote in message <68ulei$hoa@news.microsoft.com>...
>What I care about is that this newsgroup will significantly increase the
>exposure of Baha'is to material that is potentially extremely harmful to
>their spiritual well-being. Covenant-breakers had become almost an extinct
>species, and, because of this, people who've become Baha'is over the past
25
>years have almost no knowledge of the issues that the handful of remaining
>Covenant-breakers raise.
>
>Ultimately, it's up to the proponents to decide how they will attempt to
>address this concern. I think I've about given up on the hope that this
>concern will receive the kind of open and respectful consultation that it
>deserives, so I will simply decide how to vote after careful consideration
>of all the issues involved including how well I think this concern has been
>addressed by the proponents.
Short of requiring everyone to check their souls at the door, your
request "to do" something about covenant breakers is not
realistic.... What is it you expect people on an unmoderated forum
to do? Should Bahai participants interrogate them? Drive them
away? Curse them? On alt.religion.bahai, they would post what
they want and Bahais would simply ignore them and they would
go away eventually.... I don't see talk.religion.bahai as working
much differently.... Talk to whom you want to.... Or you can have
the thought police, as at soc.religion.bahai, reject everyone who
doesn't pass their tests....
Let's be fair, many people have tried to explain this to you for
months....
>
>
>Warmest Regards,
>Rick Schaut
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Annie wrote in message <01bd1b24$805a0e00$8eb360cf@baha>...
>>Frederick: If being an "official organ of any institutional faith"
implies
>censure, a moderator, or anything to do with telling me what i should
>think, how i should think it, and so on, then, give me the opposite!
Your opposite is what talk.religion.bahai would be! Unmoderated....
>A newsgroup should be left open, i believe, to a free exchange of ideas. If
>any religion or sect wanted their own newsgroup, why don't they just create
>one and post their rules for the participants to follow? So, if this is not
>what you want, but you want a group that encourages a healthy exchange of
>profound and worthy ideals between posters, then, why don't you get on with
>it and get the group rolling? What's all this World Wide Waiting thing all
>about?
The Bahai Faith has soc.religion.bahai, which many feel is highly
censored and the de facto official mouthpiece, though often denied....
Because the perception of censorship is so pervasive, many Bahais
and non-Bahais have and do support the creation of an umoderated
newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai.... I'm trying to get on with it. Everyone
took the holidays off, myself included, and I've just posted in the last
few days messages about getting the vote rolling within a week or
two. I've got to give people a chance to get in their last comments
on the "disclaimer" clause, which has created a lot of discussion,
or else appear to be ramming something through....
Part of the waiting, though, has been to give time for Bahais
to understand the nature of interest polling versus voting. Many
claim Bahais voted NO last spring because they failed to
understand. Well, they've had all fall, a full year now to come to
grips with the Usenet system.... The vote last spring was
157 YES: 691 NO.... Such an excuse this time will be extremely
untenable given the 6 months of discussion since August now....
Some Bahais seem to feel that the highest Bahai authority,
the Universal House of Justice, secretly supports a NO vote by
stating that they should vote their "conscience." The reality is
that such a vote would deprive 157 people, or whatever this
time, of the rights of THEIR consciences.... This too has taken
time....
Sorry.... I hope we can post the 4th RFD within a week or two
and then the CFV....
>
>
>Annie
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: T.R.B. needed
whateverman wrote in message <34B2DF47.6A41@tacks.stupidity>...
>I'm a Baha'i who lost touch with the his faith. I recently tried to
>find some kind of forum in which to discuss "Baha'i issues", but was
>intimidated by s.r.b; there seemed to be a level of knowledge needed to
>even offer opinion.
>
>In *my* opinion, t.r.b, or the continued existence of a.r.b is needed as
>I'd like to participate without feeling as if I weren't compitent to
>participate...
The problem with alt.religion.bahai is that very few people who
voted YES last spring have access to it. The entire alt.* hierarchy
is not widely available. AOL, for instance, does not even offer it.
I hope that talk.religion.bahai would be a more open forum
to your liking....
>
>--
> Whateverman
>
>https://www.erols.com/whateverman/Home.htm
>
>"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and
>parade those discriminations before others."
>--Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
grayfeather@centralva.net wrote in message
<884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>...
>As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdul-Baha stated
>that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>forget about these dead old world religions?
I think you're right that the emphasis is on the old "mainline"
Western religions.... As someone who has lived and pioneered
on the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation in Arizona for
two years, I know a little about the traditional native religions and
respect them.... There is a deeply spiritual understanding of the
transcedence of human experience in the Native American
religions that Bahais and others would do well to consider much
more seriously. Sad to say too, that many Indians, like all peoples
in the modern world, have forgotten the richness of such
experience....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:43 AM
To: talisman@umich.edu
Cc: house@usq.edu.au; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:25 PM
To: talisman
Cc: UHJ; Chris; Ron House
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: David Bikman <dbikman@bwc.org>
To: FG <fglaysh@hotmail.com>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; house@usq.edu.au
<house@usq.edu.au>; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
>Mr. Glaysher wrote,
>
>> 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....
>
>
>This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the
>Universal House of Justice operates. They do not "code" their messages.
>They do not assume hidden knowledge. If the happened to feel that the
>proper response of the Baha'i community was to vote "no" they would say
>"Please vote no." They would not take it as a given that the Baha'i
>community knows this, and just give a slight nod in its general
>direction. They have not told us to vote "no," thus the only logical
>conclusion to for us to read the message at face value.
I did not say the UHJ codes it's messages.... I said many Bahais
seem to have taken it as such.... A significant diffference.... I have
said and still maintain the message evinces no understanding of
the nature of Usenet interest polling but conceives of it as though
it were a conventional vote, which it is not....
>
>The Universal House of Justice does not say any more or less than what
>they feel is needed to sufficiently address the issue at hand.
I believe they have not properly addressed the issue at hand.... If they
have, they're then undermining an established system of governing
public forums on the Internet, tantamount to the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie or a similar fanatical attack on the West.... It may
be the BCCA is complicitous in this or erroneously advising the
UHJ....
The
>evidence for this is replete in every message they've ever sent. The
>House of Justice is not in the business of creating precedent, they are
>in the business of dealing with the issues at hand, one at a time. If a
>problem is facing the Baha'i community, and the House of Justice knows
>what to do in order to solve it, would they leave the solution up to
>chance by dropping vague allusions and subtle hints? How could the
>Trustees of God deliberately withhold their guidance?
Their message suggests, I believe, that they did not understand
the nature of the polling. NO votes are illegitimate votes, except
for technical reasons, and none exist.... Many PUBLISHED Internet
manuals, published in huge numbers, on Usenet, state it straightout....
>
>Regards,
>David Bikman
Since Juan Cole and others have suggested there are people
passing on messages to the UHJ, I'll forward this one myself
to them so that they don't miss it.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:47 PM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34B28890.62C6@boi.hp.com>...
>FG wrote:
>> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>> >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>> >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
See Ron House's comments on the disclaimer in another thread....
>I think this wording is fine. I personally don't need the
>disclaimer. I am, however, very familiar with how many people
>mistook S.R.B. as some kind of official arm of the Faith so the
>possibility for misconstruing is high and I know many others
>have raised these concerns. So, if I were the proponent I would leave
>it in there as its inclusion should buy you votes as has been
>indicated by other interested parties, so why not? Practically
>speaking, I think its a no-brainer to keep it in.
I'm not at all opposed anymore to including a disclaimer, as worded
above, broad and open and obvious.... If it helps, as Mr. Detweiler
suggests, I see no harm in compromising a little.... The most
important reason for now including it in the 4th RFD, to my mind, is
so that if anyone does vote NO they will no longer be able to say the
lack of a disclaimer was the basis for doing so.... Discussion over a
disclaimer extends back at least to early October and a solution or
response should be made to those people worried about this issue.
If this wording is acceptable to Mr. Detweiler, I then urge everyone
to support it as probably acceptable to most Bahais. Let's put
the issue behind us and get the 4th RFD in so that the interest poll
can get rolling.
>
>Dick D.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34B28890.62C6@boi.hp.com>...
>FG wrote:
>> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>> >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>> >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
See Ron House's comments on the disclaimer in another thread....
>I think this wording is fine. I personally don't need the
>disclaimer. I am, however, very familiar with how many people
>mistook S.R.B. as some kind of official arm of the Faith so the
>possibility for misconstruing is high and I know many others
>have raised these concerns. So, if I were the proponent I would leave
>it in there as its inclusion should buy you votes as has been
>indicated by other interested parties, so why not? Practically
>speaking, I think its a no-brainer to keep it in.
I'm not at all opposed anymore to including a disclaimer, as worded
above, broad and open and obvious.... If it helps, as Mr. Detweiler
suggests, I see no harm in compromising a little.... The most
important reason for now including it in the 4th RFD, to my mind, is
so that if anyone does vote NO they will no longer be able to say the
lack of a disclaimer was the basis for doing so.... Discussion over a
disclaimer extends back at least to early October and a solution or
response should be made to those people worried about this issue.
If this wording is acceptable to Mr. Detweiler, I then urge everyone
to support it as probably acceptable to most Bahais. Let's put
the issue behind us and get the 4th RFD in so that the interest poll
can get rolling.
>
>Dick D.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <34B3778B.60F6@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>The discussion had really slackened over the last month, due in part to
>the holiday, but I think also due to the fact that the main issues have,
>for the most part, been discussed. The last couple of RFD's have been,
>IMHO, tweaks to the wording which don't substantially affect the
>proposal. I'd say we should hold the vote soon.
If we can agree on using the disclaimer as Detweiler approved it,
which is fine with me, I'd be happy to submit the 4th RFD on Friday
or Saturday. I'd include in it the minor revisions that Henrietta Thomas
mentioned a few days ago....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:00 PM
To: Ron House
Subject: the disclaimer....
Ron,
Your mentioning you're opposed to the disclaimer has helped
a lot, perhaps driving Detweiler into saying it's acceptable at
least, better than nothing from his point of view.... See my
response to him in which I try to answer your concerns too.
I really think the passage is so watered down it would now
be best to include it so that no one has an excuse to vote NO....
Would you consider begrudingly accepting it so that things
can get rolling? It's a meaningless passage. If anyone ever
brings it up after the vote, there's plenty of material to throw
back in their faces, such as the "whipping post" passage
in the 3rd RFD....
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>
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 7:59 AM
To: Spam; Chris; Ron House
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Guy Macon wrote in message <691ncl$ohg$3@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Looks like someone has decided to spam an ad for a bahai newsgroup.
Please do not spam anything related to the interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai!!!!
I had nothing to do with this and emphatically denounced it. And I hope
no one involved on either side of the discussion is responsible for it.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not secretly hoping someone goes
ahead and does something like this. The interest poll has to be fair
for it to have any meaning. As someone said a couple of months ago,
in order to know whether Bahais have learnt anything from the now
6 months of discussion, a year really, the interest poll has to be above
board all the way through....
I'm sending a cc of this message to the spammer and others might
also email him directly to inform him of the seriousness of what he's
doing and that it shouldn't be done.
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>
>I believe that, in the name of preserving the good reputation
>Bahais have on the Internet, someone should try to stop this person
>from using "Bulk E-Mail Software" and "news posting software".
>Such software has only one use; to fill up newsgroups and email
>mailboxes with unwanted messages. Leave that sort of behavior
>to the 1-900 phone sex advertisers. Bahais should have nothing
>to do with net abuse.
>
>Here is a copy of the offending usenet post:
>
>Path: news.deltanet.com!news.he.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
>From: rlking@iquest.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>
>here is a cool religion link.
>
>
>https://www.bahai.org
>
>happy reading!
>
>
>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>https://www.emailmagnet.com
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Guy Macon wrote in message <691ncl$ohg$3@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Looks like someone has decided to spam an ad for a bahai newsgroup.
Please do not spam anything related to the interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai!!!!
I had nothing to do with this and emphatically denounced it. And I hope
no one involved on either side of the discussion is responsible for it.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not secretly hoping someone goes
ahead and does something like this. The interest poll has to be fair
for it to have any meaning. As someone said a couple of months ago,
in order to know whether Bahais have learnt anything from the now
6 months of discussion, a year really, the interest poll has to be above
board all the way through....
I'm sending a cc of this message to the spammer and others might
also email him directly to inform him of the seriousness of what he's
doing and that it shouldn't be done.
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>
>I believe that, in the name of preserving the good reputation
>Bahais have on the Internet, someone should try to stop this person
>from using "Bulk E-Mail Software" and "news posting software".
>Such software has only one use; to fill up newsgroups and email
>mailboxes with unwanted messages. Leave that sort of behavior
>to the 1-900 phone sex advertisers. Bahais should have nothing
>to do with net abuse.
>
>Here is a copy of the offending usenet post:
>
>Path: news.deltanet.com!news.he.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
>From: rlking@iquest.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>
>here is a cool religion link.
>
>
>https://www.bahai.org
>
>happy reading!
>
>
>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>https://www.emailmagnet.com
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: T.R.B. needed
whateverman wrote in message <34B3A407.75BC@tacks.stupidity>...
>Perhaps I should instead mention that a moderated forum is more
>intimidating than an unmoderated one. I would like to see a forum free
>of "Well, is this *really* a valid topic?"
Basically, this is what talk.religion.bahai would provide Bahais and
non-Bahais interested in discussing the Bahai Faith and is its
primary rationale....
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
Annie wrote in message <01bd1be4$de69a1c0$92b360cf@baha>...
>FG <FG@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><68vqha$n9o@news1.zippo.com>...
>> Annie wrote in message <01bd1b24$805a0e00$8eb360cf@baha>...
>>
>snip and clip....
>
>> The Bahai Faith has soc.religion.bahai, which many feel is highly
>> censored and the de facto official mouthpiece, though often denied....
>> Because the perception of censorship is so pervasive, many Bahais
>> and non-Bahais have and do support the creation of an umoderated
>> newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai.... I'm trying to get on with it....
>
>---------
>
>What i don't understand, Frederick, is why you need the word "bahai" at all
>in this proposed newsgroup of yours.
>
>I understand from what you write that the "bahas," it was surmised, voted
>against the idea last year. So, there you have it. If these people don't
>support you (and i am assuming you are in the same religion as they) then,
>you shouldn't go ahead with the project. But if you do go ahead with the
>project despite the NO of your co-religionists, then you're getting
>yourself into trouble. On the other hand, it is true to say that most
>breakthroughs have seen the light despite their non-popularity.
And talk.religion.bahai would indeed be a breakthrough perhaps
for Bahais.... Incidentally, I'm not the only Bahai who would like
to see its realization.... The newsgroup has been discussed now
for an entire year this month on the 17th!!!!
>I have always believed that a good idea should be carried through. Only
>after its realization, and sometime later, can we know if it should be
>continued or stopped. If it's good, good and well. If it isn't, well, stop
>it!
>
>
>Annie
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
whateverman wrote in message <34B4C118.2643@tacks.stupidity>...
>Why not say that the group is merely an unmoderated form of s.r.b., such
>that it would allow non-Baha'is to freely participate?
This may be the gist of it but we're trying to find a way of saying it
that is as diplomatic as possible....
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>
----------
From: Zutetflute[SMTP:Zutetflute@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 10:06 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: TRB
Hello Fred
Thanks to one of your posts I was able to finally access alt.religion.bahai
again via dejanews (I had switched to AOL because the provider I had was
really bad).
And I found that the discussion for talk.religion.bahai continues even after
all these months. But I must wonder why--the newsgroup exists. Hardly anyone
ever posts to it, and right now it has mostly ads in it. Are people unaware
of its existence?
Andree
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:02 AM
To: Zutetflute
Subject: Re: TRB
Everyone's energy has been going into discussing talk.religion.bahai
on news.groups since early October. It should be going to a vote
again this month. Look in on news.groups. It needs every vote it can
get!
I'm afraid even after an entire year many people do not know of the
existence of alt.religion.bahai because of its propagation problems.
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Zutetflute <Zutetflute@aol.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 9:06 PM
Subject: TRB
>Hello Fred
>
>Thanks to one of your posts I was able to finally access alt.religion.bahai
>again via dejanews (I had switched to AOL because the provider I had was
>really bad).
>And I found that the discussion for talk.religion.bahai continues even
after
>all these months. But I must wonder why--the newsgroup exists. Hardly
anyone
>ever posts to it, and right now it has mostly ads in it. Are people
unaware
>of its existence?
>
>
>Andree
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
whateverman wrote in message <34B513A3.736B@tacks.stupidity>...
>
>Sorry if this has been rehashed, but can you post previous ideas for
>this disclaimer?
>
There have been more versions than I or probably anyone else
can remember! I think we've finally found a form most people
can agree on so I'll post the 4th RFD tomorrow morning unless
there are substantive suggestions for other changes. The interest
polling should begin now as soon as possible.
Incidentally, I recommend everyone read "1997 Newsgroup Votes
in Review," if you haven't already.... I think the numbers speak for
themselves....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Scott P. Duncan wrote in message <34B4E8B4.4E55@mindspring.com>...
>> And talk.religion.bahai would indeed be a breakthrough perhaps
>> for Bahais.... Incidentally, I'm not the only Bahai who would like
>> to see its realization.... The newsgroup has been discussed now
>> for an entire year this month on the 17th!!!
>
>I must admit that I have not been following the history
>of the proposal of TRB for a long time. But as to its
>perceived need, I do have a few questions, since I am
>neither pro or con about it in any strong way.
>
>While there may be a number of people who want to see TRB
>get formed and it has been noted in other posts that >5000
>messages have been posted on this (ARB) newsgroup, most
>of the posts I have see have been by one person and/or about
>the TRB formation. This may be quite fair and, as noted in
>another post, many may not be able to get this newsgroup who
>would otherwise post here.
513 different people posted on over 1,200 different threads
on alt.religion.bahai from April 1, 1997 to early October. Many
more people than I myself are interested in trb and have posted
about it. Search www.dejanews.com for the above dates or
to today and you'll see over 5,000 have indeed posted to it with
many different substantive conversations on things other than
formation of trb.
>
>However, if ARB is a sample of what TRB might contain once
>stripped of discussing of newsgroup formation and past con-
>cerns over voting, there has not been a whole heck of a lot
>of interesting stuff posted here. For me, the most interesting
>was actually some discussion about what Islam is/is not.
Ultimately, trb is not bound by what has or has not taken place
on alt.religion.bahai. 157 people voted for trb last spring and
then most of them were unable to access the alt.* hierarchy.
I just received a message from one of them who was shocked
to have just discovered arb has been going on all this time and
trb is heading for the 2nd vote!
>
>To a great extent, most posts could easily have been elsewhere
>(at least talk.religion.misc if other groups did not find them
>relevant either).
You've got to be joking....
>
>What are the actual topics people really excpect to get discussed
>in TRB that would not make it on to SRB or just as easily belong
>in some other group?
We've discussed this for 6 months now, at least 4 on news.groups.
Search dejanews for back discussion you have apparently missed.
>
>My willingness to participate in a vote about TRB is affected
>greatly by the lack of examples of what would be really be
>discussed. What an RFD hypothetically says could/should be
>is, especially for an unmoderated group, only vaguely indicative
>of what will happen. What has been going on in ARB seems to be
>more illustrative of what people currently care about, isn't
>it?
Not at all. What's going on presently is that most people are
exhausted from the long drawn out battle for free speech and
religious conscience.... Trb is not contingent on arb....
>
>Should I ignore the content of ARB as an example of what to
>expect in TRB? If so, what else is there? If not, then I
>think there seems to be little reason to have TRB based on
>the past year of postings which I have browsed through.
You should ignore much of the present content, I would say,
not the massive NO vote prevented the full 157 YES voters
from participating. Nonetheless, significant conversation
did and has occurred on arb. I don't believe your analysis of
the content of arb is accurate.... Much worthwhile discussion
has taken place....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>One technical question, Frederick: I was wondering why so many of your
>postings go to a.r.b. & news.groups, but follow-ups are set to n.g only?
>Is this an oversight or a technical glitch?
>
>DZO
As I understand it, all followup discussion should take place
on news.groups. It's stated in the RFD.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:28 AM
Subject: Please read "1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review"
I recommend everyone interested in the proposal for trb read
"1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review," if you haven't already.... I
think the numbers should give everyone pause as we approach
the present interest poll on talk.religion.bahai.
With extremely few exceptions, all the NO votes are in the
10 to 20 to maybe 50 range. The 691 NO votes cast against
talk.religion.bahai stand out starkly....
Since Bahais have had an entire year now to come to an
understanding of Usenet interest polling, I do not expect similiar
RESULTS. The soc.religion.bahai RESULTS in 1992 were
236 YES to 48 NO. Bahais seemed to understand the Usenet
system quite well then....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:33 AM
To: Spam
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Roger Reini wrote in message <34b8c6a5.62541305@news.zippo.com>...
>Did you contact this individual yourself? I don't recognize the ID as
>one that's active in the online Baha'i discussion community.
>
>I agree -- we Baha'is should not engage in spamming.
Roger, you're asking me that? Yes, I did cc him with my first response.
I'll cc this message too just to be sure he understands more than
one person would prefer he not spam "on behalf" of the Bahai Faith.
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>
>
>
>>From: rlking@iquest.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>>Lines: 10
>>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>>
>>here is a cool religion link.
>>
>>
>>https://www.bahai.org
>>
>>happy reading!
>>
>>
>>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>>https://www.emailmagnet.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Roger Reini wrote in message <34b8c6a5.62541305@news.zippo.com>...
>Did you contact this individual yourself? I don't recognize the ID as
>one that's active in the online Baha'i discussion community.
>
>I agree -- we Baha'is should not engage in spamming.
Roger, you're asking me that? Yes, I did cc him with my first response.
I'll cc this message too just to be sure he understands more than
one person would prefer he not spam "on behalf" of the Bahai Faith.
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>
>
>
>>From: rlking@iquest.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>>Lines: 10
>>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>>
>>here is a cool religion link.
>>
>>
>>https://www.bahai.org
>>
>>happy reading!
>>
>>
>>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>>https://www.emailmagnet.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:35 AM
To: zutetflute@aol.com
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
If you haven't noticed your message didn't make through to
alt.religion.bahai.
Try it again. Thanks for your note....
--
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>
zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <884239715.1616707587@dejanews.com>...
>In article <884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>,
> grayfeather@centralva.net wrote:
>>
>> As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>> not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdul-Baha stated
>> that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>> Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>> forget about these dead old world religions?
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
If you haven't noticed your message didn't make through to
alt.religion.bahai.
Try it again. Thanks for your note....
--
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>
zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <884239715.1616707587@dejanews.com>...
>In article <884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>,
> grayfeather@centralva.net wrote:
>>
>> As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>> not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdul-Baha stated
>> that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>> Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>> forget about these dead old world religions?
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 9:43 AM
To: FG
Subject: Fw: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>...
>>OK, here comes the line-by-line I've been wanting to do. It may or may
>>not agree with what other people are saying, but I think the final
decision
>>on all points should be made by the proponents themselves.
>
>Thanks for taking the time....
>
>>In news.groups on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT, "FG"
>><FG@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>>
>>[snip]..... no problem with introduction
>>
>>>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>>>
>>>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
>>>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
>>>need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
>>>would meet that need.
>>
>>[Delete unnecessary paragraph and substitute the following]
>
>A whole lot of discussion went into that paragraph during
>August and September on alt.religion.bahai. I'd hate to throw
>all that away, for historical reasons if nothing else. The breakdown
>of figures I think further help to document how extensive
>the interest in trb really is.... Personally, I'd like to keep all this.
>
>>
>>After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the
>>proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need
>>for an unmoderated group. From April 1 to September 27, 1997,
>>over 2,863 messages were posted to alt.religion.bahai by people
>>with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This works
>>out to about 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages
>>per month for six months. During this time period, approximately
>>513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
>>
>>[I've deleted the reference to talk.religion.bahai in the paragraph
>>below]
>
>Jonathan Grobe points out it was he who created alt.religion.bahai.
>I did not ask him to do so but am very grateful that he did. This
>morning, December 31, 1997, there are 4,975 messages on
>dejanews posted to arb since April 1, 1997. More than a little
>interest there, by anyone's fair-minded estimate, I would think....
>
>>
>>>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
>>>for alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time period. Please note that
>>>despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of
>>>posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the formation
>>>of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith in the talk.*
>>>hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility
>>>of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by
>>>interested people.
>>
>>[No change in this paragraph]
>>
>>>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
>>>rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
>>>soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
>>>alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
>>>opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
>>>YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
>>>alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
>>>anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
>>>see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
>>>unmoderated newsgroup.
>>>
>>>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>>>
>>>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>>>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>>>discussion.
>>
>>[rearranging paragraphs; word changes underlined]
>>
>>>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
>>>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
>>>large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam,
>>>and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
>>
>>>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
>>>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
>>>crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
>>>rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to
>>>this charter.
>>^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Sure, "this charter" reads better. Move the paragraph makes
>sense.
>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>Baha'i faith.
>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>
>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>or any other faith....
>
>I suggest:
>
>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>including the Bahai Faith.
>
>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>trb should have one....
>
>>>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>>>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>>
>>[I left out the "whipping post" paragraph because I don't think it
>>adds anything to the charter, but would not be upset if the proponents
>>decide to put it back in]
>
>Well, as long as there is a subordinate clause or language
>that clarifies the situation sufficiently, I'm willing to drop the
>whipping post passage though I believe it's only a fair
>compromise.... No one else seems willing to compromise.
>
>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>would be:
>
>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>religion.
>
>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>reference for this.
>
>>
>>>END CHARTER.
>>>
>>>PROCEDURE:
>>>
>>>The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
>>>stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
>>>the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
>>>news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
>>>groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
>>>three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
>>>the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
>>>
>>>The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
>>>pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
>>>more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
>>>e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
>>>Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
>>
>>[Add paragraph]
>>
>>The CFV is usually posted twice over a 21-day period, and then the
>>votetaker tallies up the votes and the RESULT is posted to news.
>>announce.newgroups and news.groups. If after a 5-day waiting period,
>>there are no challenges to the RESULT, the group will be created if
>>the proposal passed. But if the proposal failed, then the proponent(s)
>>must wait six months before they try again.
>
>Soc.religion.bahai's interest poll was 236 YES: 48 NO. That's the
>usual ratio, roughly.... 30, 40, maybe 50 NO votes.... Anything
>beyond that, I'm certainly going to challenge and believe everyone
>interested in fairness and the preservation of Usenet as a system
>should....
>
>The last sentence I would delete....
>
>>
>>[I have mixed emotions about the Allbery quote. It seems kind of
>>long to me, and I wonder if it will backfire and just make people
>>angry. But I will leave that decision to the proponents here.]
>
>It's a lucid statement on interest polling that I believe should
>remain in so that Bahais reading the RFD understand what
>is involved.... Many claim they didn't understand the nature
>of interest polling last time. This passage helps educate
>them and ought to remain. If that is a basis for voting NO,
>David Lawrence and every techie on news.groups ought
>just give up right now....and create some other way of forming
>new groups....
>
>>>An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
>>>considered by all:
>>>
>>>"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>>
>>>
>>>This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
>>>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
>>>"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal"
>>>questions about the process.
>>>
>>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>>
>>[No problem with the distribution or listing of proponents]
>
>Okay. Thanks a lot, Henrietta, for going to all this trouble of
>considering this 3rd RFD. I appreciate it. All your suggestions
>are taken to heart here. I'm willing to incorporate the changes
>I've commented on. What do others think? Chris? Ron?
>Anyone else back yet?
>
>Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas!
>And even a more Happy New Year!
>
>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>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <34B65DAF.5C80@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>
>The moderator on duty must have felt that this message was not
>sufficiently on-topic for soc.religion.bahai. Usually, the note of
>rejection states the reason for the rejection.
>
>This would appear to be a case of moderator's discretion. The primary
>subject of the article is net abuse. The Faith was involved only
>because of the subject of the original, off-topic post.
>
>I understand that the original poster is a very new Baha'i. Perhaps he
>posted out of ignorance, in which case a private note to him would
>likely be sufficient. Now if he kept on doing it, you'd have grounds
>for further action.
How do you know the poster is "a very new Bahai"? What difference
would that make anyway in terms of discussing the reputation of the
Faith as a result of his actions? Bahais have stated often that they
want to protect the Faith from one thing or another on
talk.religion.bahai, why are they not concerned about protecting it
from such incidents as this spammer?
>I think it should be possible for a discussion of netiquette to take
>place on s.r.b, if it's tied in tightly with the principles and
>teachings of the Baha'i Faith. To be honest, I think such a discussion
>would be easier to conduct on either alt.religion.bahai or (if it
>passes) talk.religion.bahai, since the lack of moderation might allow
>the discussion to proceed more smoothly.
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 10:05 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Just Government
-----Original Message-----
>From: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON <talishman@usa.net>
>To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
>Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 5:01 PM
>Subject: Just Government
>Shoghi Effendi, regarding `Abdul-Baha's commands to Baha'is to
>obey the just government(s), says:
>"What the Master's statement really means is obedience to a duly
>constituted government, whatever that government may be in form.
>We are not the ones, as individual Bahá'ís, to judge our government
>as just or unjust--for each believer would be sure to hold a different
>viewpoint, and within our own Bahá'í...."
>-Directives from The Guardian, Page 56
Many people have argued, myself included, that the Usenet system
of interest polling is a form of a "duly constituted government." It
provides the rules and rationale for forming and regulating the
newsgroup social order, if you will.... Yet Bahais have shown no
lack of alacrity to judge it and violate its most basic tenets of
interest polling....
How do you explain or justify such blatant dismissal of the
Guardian's guidance?
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Please read "1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review"
Jeff Davey wrote:
Yes, there are some
>people who will be voting their own agenda. I have read some people will
vote
>NO on it, and they think that this action is still within their rights and
in
>accordance with the guidelines. I have read (not firsthand, but
secondhand)
>that some people will vote NO because they have something against Fred
>personally. I have also read some people threaten to vote YES *just* to
offset
>what they consider unjustified NO votes.
Can you tell us WHERE you have read these things?
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
To: FG; Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
To: FG; Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Universal Acceptance of the Faith
Robert Pascoe wrote in message <"EB5UjD.A.nYD.xuTs0"@bounty>...
Paraphrasing Baha'u'llah:
Later they would realize that man cannot live
>without religion. Then they would study the teachings of
>all religions to see which of the religions conformed to the prevailing
>conditions of the time. It is then that the Cause of god would become
>universal.*
Some Bahais might find Vaclav Havel's comments in the Fall 1997
issue of New Perspective Quarterly interesting in this regard:
"How this existential revolution takes place is the central question of
our time."
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 1998 10:37 AM
To: Michael McKenny
Subject: 4th RFD in....
The 4th and final RFD has just gone into news.announce.newgroups.
Voting should start again in about a week or two if a vote taker
can be assigned quickly.
Haven't heard from you in a long time.... Everything okay?
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>
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 1:45 AM
To: FG
Cc: talisman; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
FG wrote:
>
> It's getting hard to remember who wrote and revised:
>
> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
> >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
> >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
>
> I'd like to use this passage for the "disclaimer."
> Any objections or comments? If Bahais don't really care about
> this statement any more, we could just drop it, as Ron House,
> a co-proponent, has suggested to me in email.... If you care
> about this, please speak up and make your views known....
I posted a suggested disclaimer to n.g just a few minutes
ago. Mine is wordier, but includes the reason, as well as
not actually naming s.r.b, which is, I think, better
because I think we should not define this ng in negative
terms by comparison with anything else, but in positive
terms by stating what we expect it to be. I suspect a
more compact form of what I posted could be devised.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 1:52 AM
To: FG
Subject: Re: the disclaimer....
FG wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Your mentioning you're opposed to the disclaimer has helped
> a lot, perhaps driving Detweiler into saying it's acceptable at
> least, better than nothing from his point of view.... See my
> response to him in which I try to answer your concerns too.
>
> I really think the passage is so watered down it would now
> be best to include it so that no one has an excuse to vote NO....
See my immediately preceding e-pistle mentioning the
disclaimer I wrote before I saw this. Whatever you
decide after reading my comments will be fine by me.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 9:24 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: the disclaimer....
>> I really think the passage is so watered down it would now
>> be best to include it so that no one has an excuse to vote NO....
>
>See my immediately preceding e-pistle mentioning the
>disclaimer I wrote before I saw this. Whatever you
>decide after reading my comments will be fine by me.
I emailed you two or three days ago and didn't hear from you
so when most people agreed finally to something I wanted to
seize the opportunity to put this disclaimer business behind
us and get the vote going. I posted the 4th RFD to David
Lawrence on Saturday morning. He should posted it any
time now. Hope you don't mind. The disclaimer doesn't really
matter anymore, I believe....
I hope the voting can start in 7 to 10 days....
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
>
----------
From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 10:58 AM
To: FG
Subject: posted "4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai"
[ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ]
On 12 Jan 1998 (Mon), at 14:58:39 GMT, your proposal was posted to
the following groups. This list might be different from what was
originally requested if the Newsgroups header was over 200 characters
long, some of the groups were bogus (ie, superseded Big 8 groups) or
not carried by my news server (like defunct alt groups), or other
relevant groups were noted and added.
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
talk.religion.misc
soc.rights.human
soc.culture.israel
It was also sent separately to the following group,
for which another moderator must approve it:
soc.religion.bahai
It was also sent separately to the following lists:
Talisman@umich.edu
Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 10:58 AM
To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
*The Baha'i Studies List*
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
>From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
-
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
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 10:58 AM
To: Talisman@umich.edu
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
>From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 2:16 PM
Subject: 4th RFD posted
David Lawrence has emailed me that the 4th RFD has been
posted to news.announce.newgroups.
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>
----------
From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 3:32 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:58:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "FG" <FG@hotmail.com>
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call
for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear
below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage under the
Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet
that need.
>From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for
179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com
does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent,
roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. During this
time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200
threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods.
Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the
high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the
forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.*
hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of
the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by
interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than
supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide
those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated
alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many
people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit
and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated
newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings,
theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in
their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is
strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII
graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any
postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers
may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so
long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular religion,
including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an
official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered by all:
"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>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when
someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the
proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the
RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase,
proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on
news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass
a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes
in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may
cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
(UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines
outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD."
Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the
process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human, soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us> Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu> Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com> Proponent: Chris Manvell
<Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk> Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <34BA3A35.2452@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>I have no objections to the proposal as it now stands.
I'd like to send in the Questionnaire to the Usenet Voluntary
Votetakers (UVV) as soon as possible. Does anyone know
how soon that might be? I'm under the impression that it can be
submitted after 7 days, not 10. Is that correct?
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Guy Macon wrote in message <69houm$a83$4@news01.deltanet.com>...
>The Usenet community as
>a whole is very wary of any religion, after the scientologists tried to
>shut down usenet. Bahais (and Quakers!) need to be squeeky clean, with
>absolutely no trace of net abuse. To do this, you need to police your
>own members. To do that you have to be able to post on the subject.
>This is why I brought this up in news.groups; soc.religion.bahai not
>allowing discussion about net-abuse by bahais is a reason for voting
>yes on an unmoderated bahai newsgroup.
First, we are all speculating on why soc.religion.bahai rejected
your post.... My speculation is that they approve of such spamming.
After all, it's spreading the Word.... Further, it would cast Bahais in a
bad light to reveal it on soc.religion.bahai. Better merely to suppress
the whole thing, which usually works, always has in the past, and let it
continue, since a few souls may come to the Truth, as a result,
anyway....
>You have some zealous bahais who really do love their faith and want to
>spread it everywhere. You also have idiots advertising services that
>will email several hundred thousand addresses or post to tens of
>thousands of newsgroups for a modest fee. Put the two together, and you
>have a black mark against bahaism. Oh, sure, I could talk about this
>in news.admin.net-abuse.*, but I know what they will say. They don't
>like spamming over there. They have *very* effective measures to stop
>it. I would rather see any net-abuse by bahais stopped by a little
>social pressure before it comes to that.
You're thinking like a non-Bahai.... The guy's on OUR side.... The
black mark would only result if the information appeared on
soc.religion.bahai and other innocent Bahais were to learn of it. THAT
would be negative.... What non-Bahais think is of no consequence....
Bahais must be protected, for their own good, from such negative
charges against their fellow Bahais....
I too believe it's another good reason to vote YES.... It typifies
what I and others have been saying for nearly a year has been
our experience with soc.religion.bahai....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 8:07 AM
Subject: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
The UVV's CFV Questions states:
"A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least
21 days from the date of the first RFD, or 10 days from any
subsequent RFD, whichever is later. "
I'm assuming the 7 days mentioned by someone a month or
so ago is in error. Anyway, I'm working on the Questionnaire
and will send it in to the UVV by Friday, which shouldn't
conflict with their 5 to 7 days before the end of a discussion
period.
Incidentally, pointers to the CFV may be posted to all of the
newsgroups on the RFD, right?
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 8:13 AM
To: Chris Stone
Cc: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Fw: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
Just want to let you know how things are going....
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 7:07 AM
Subject: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
>The UVV's CFV Questions states:
>
>"A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least
>21 days from the date of the first RFD, or 10 days from any
>subsequent RFD, whichever is later. "
>
>I'm assuming the 7 days mentioned by someone a month or
>so ago is in error. Anyway, I'm working on the Questionnaire
>and will send it in to the UVV by Friday, which shouldn't
>conflict with their 5 to 7 days before the end of a discussion
>period.
>
>Incidentally, pointers to the CFV may be posted to all of the
>newsgroups on the RFD, right?
>
>--
>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>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 8:29 AM
Subject: Bahai Spammer/ Bahai Fireside / Christian perspective considered
Given the type of thing shown by soc.religion.bahai with the
Bahai spammer, people might want to reflect on the web
site created by a former Bahai who has returned to Christianity....
I think it shows quite well the frustration many feel with the lack
of open and free discussion within and about the Bahai Faith....
>The URL for the Fireside Letters is;
>
https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.htm
l
>Thanks,
>Dale:)
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 10:02 AM
To: FG
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <69ggsh$2hj@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>In article <69gfu2$5pb@news.microsoft.com>,
>>Rick Schaut <richs@microsoft.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>>In any event, I guess I'd like to
>>ask you if you are comfortable with a few people taking this on and
>>working it through while the vote goes ahead? If you aren't comfortable
>>and you'd like to see more discussion on this before the vote, I hope the
>>proponents can accomodate this and give the discussion a few days.
Discussion of the proposal has been taken place officially since
October 20th, 1997, though it began in earnest in early August....
That's been sufficient time to discuss anything, including covenant
breakers.... A quick search of dejanews shows 91 hits on the
subject. It's time for the vote to proceed....
>
>To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I'm not trying to lay down any form
>of ultimatum regarding my vote. There is no clear-cut right or wrong,
here.
>There is only our conscientious decision. We each have our own conscience
>to satisfy, and it would be abundantly arrogant of me to even imply that my
>own conscience is superior to that of others.
The Universal House of Justice has said:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
It is not the responsibility, therefore, of the proponents to answer
this problem. The Auxiliary Counsellors for protection of the
Bahai Faith have that responsibility, as does the UHJ. Write
them for advice.... Too much time has gone by on this
proposal.... I'm sure many people feel this way and wish the
interest polling would just get going....
>
>I do see a responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of Baha'is
>who have actively worked to bring this newsgroup into existence. The
>proponents do not have to answer to me, but they do have to answer to a
much
>higher Authority. To that end, I think the proponents of this newsgroup
>should think long and hard about what answer they might give to that
>Authority if even one person ends up severing themselves from the Universal
>House of Justice because they ran into Covenant-breaker material in t.r.b
>and didn't have sufficient knowledge of the issues that Covenant-breakers
>raise.
Again, write the UHJ and Counsellors. If they're so concerned about
the messages from covenant breakers, why haven't they ever
answered them themselves? At this stage, this issue is only clouding
the waters....
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
>
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 8:44 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34bda2e1.10464201@news.wwa.com>...
>I _do_ want to bring up the disclaimer one last time. Ron
>House has written an article suggesting different wording,
>and nobody has responded as yet. I think you and Chris
>Manvell should get together with Ron and make some
>sort of compromise on this. Ron is one of the proponents,
>so his point of view should carry some weight here. And
>if you have to do a 5th RFD just to change the disclaimer,
>so be it. I do not think his proposal should be ignored.
Ron and I have kept in touch with email all along, by and
large, while he's been on vacation for the past month. We
have discussed the disclaimer and his last note to me said
he'd agree to leave it as is if it seemed best to do so. I'd
rather not rehashed it. Richard Detweiler and Roger Reini,
often in the past two people very much opposed to trb,
have said they find it acceptable and I think most Bahais
should. The disclaimer really doesn't say anything beyond
the standard disclaimer in many books and magazines
today and I don't see any reason to go to a 5th RFD just
over it. Too much time has already been wasted on it.
Another perspective: With it, the loop hole is closed;
there's no excuse for voting NO....
I'll forward this to Chris and Ron, as I usually do.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34bda2e1.10464201@news.wwa.com>...
>I _do_ want to bring up the disclaimer one last time. Ron
>House has written an article suggesting different wording,
>and nobody has responded as yet. I think you and Chris
>Manvell should get together with Ron and make some
>sort of compromise on this. Ron is one of the proponents,
>so his point of view should carry some weight here. And
>if you have to do a 5th RFD just to change the disclaimer,
>so be it. I do not think his proposal should be ignored.
Ron and I have kept in touch with email all along, by and
large, while he's been on vacation for the past month. We
have discussed the disclaimer and his last note to me said
he'd agree to leave it as is if it seemed best to do so. I'd
rather not rehashed it. Richard Detweiler and Roger Reini,
often in the past two people very much opposed to trb,
have said they find it acceptable and I think most Bahais
should. The disclaimer really doesn't say anything beyond
the standard disclaimer in many books and magazines
today and I don't see any reason to go to a 5th RFD just
over it. Too much time has already been wasted on it.
Another perspective: With it, the loop hole is closed;
there's no excuse for voting NO....
I'll forward this to Chris and Ron, as I usually do.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread.
I appreciate your confirming or adding to my
understanding of the CFV procedure. I'll post the
CFV and pointers only to those newsgroups already
listed on the 4th and last RFD.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <69ggsh$2hj@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>In article <69gfu2$5pb@news.microsoft.com>,
>>Rick Schaut <richs@microsoft.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>>In any event, I guess I'd like to
>>ask you if you are comfortable with a few people taking this on and
>>working it through while the vote goes ahead? If you aren't comfortable
>>and you'd like to see more discussion on this before the vote, I hope the
>>proponents can accomodate this and give the discussion a few days.
Discussion of the proposal has been taken place officially since
October 20th, 1997, though it began in earnest in early August....
That's been sufficient time to discuss anything, including covenant
breakers.... A quick search of dejanews shows 91 hits on the
subject. It's time for the vote to proceed.... There should be many
more.
>To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I'm not trying to lay down any form
>of ultimatum regarding my vote. There is no clear-cut right or wrong,here.
>There is only our conscientious decision. We each have our own conscience
>to satisfy, and it would be abundantly arrogant of me to even imply that my
>own conscience is superior to that of others.
The Universal House of Justice has said:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
It is not the responsibility, therefore, of the proponents to answer
this problem. The Auxiliary Counsellors for protection of the
Bahai Faith have that responsibility, as does the UHJ. Write
them for advice.... Too much time has gone by on this
proposal.... I'm sure many people feel this way and wish the
interest polling would just get going....
>I do see a responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of Baha'is
>who have actively worked to bring this newsgroup into existence. The
>proponents do not have to answer to me, but they do have to answer to a
much
>higher Authority. To that end, I think the proponents of this newsgroup
>should think long and hard about what answer they might give to that
>Authority if even one person ends up severing themselves from the Universal
>House of Justice because they ran into Covenant-breaker material in t.r.b
>and didn't have sufficient knowledge of the issues that Covenant-breakers
>raise.
Again, write the UHJ and Counsellors. If they're so concerned about
the messages from covenant breakers, why haven't they ever
answered them themselves? At this stage, this issue is only clouding
the waters....
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 9:14 AM
To: Chris Manvell
Subject: "I will try to get the latest RFD on my site this weekend": Thanks.
The 4th RFD on your web site would help.... Appreicate it.
The Questionnaire for the CFV goes in this weekend. I hope
the poll starts quickly thereafter.
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
----------
From: Neil Crellin[SMTP:neilc@wallaby.stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:18 PM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
"FG" <FG@hotmail.com> writes:
> Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread.
> I appreciate your confirming or adding to my
> understanding of the CFV procedure. I'll post the
> CFV and pointers only to those newsgroups already
> listed on the 4th and last RFD.
No, you won't. You'll submit the questionaire to the UVV as directed
by the Guidelines, the UVV will assign a votetaker, and the votetaker
will post the CFV based on the responses to the PQ you've submitted.
If you do it your way, it won't work anyway.
-Neil Crellin
Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
----------
From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 2:28 PM
To: FG
Subject: UVV CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ)
This is an automated reply to your request for a copy of the CFV
Proponent Questionnaire (PQ).
Attached to this message are a copy of your original message and a copy
of the PQ template.
Please follow the questionnaire instructions closely to ensure that you
properly complete the form, and then e-mail the completed form *only* to:
<contact@uvv.org>
If you have any questions regarding the CFV procedures, please address them
to the UVV at <contact@uvv.org>.
-- Bill Aten <bill@netagw.com>
Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers
UseNet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page:
<URL:https://www.uvv.org/>
--Copy of Your Mail-----------------------------------------------------------
>From warren@smtp.Syra.NET Thu Jan 15 12:12:07 1998
>Received: by netagw.com with UUCP
> id MAA18481; for bill
> Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:12:06 -0500 (EST)
>Return-Path: warren@smtp.Syra.NET
>Received: from smtp.Syra.NET by relay6.UU.NET with ESMTP
> (peer crosschecked as: shell.syra.net [204.75.204.3])
> id QQdyla10695; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:35:26 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from hotmail.com (hm1.hotmail.com [207.82.250.80])
> by smtp.Syra.NET (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA08106
> for <contact@uvv.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:34:50 -0500 (EST)
>Received: (qmail 7040 invoked from network); 15 Jan 1998 13:33:58 -0000
>Received: from modem23.rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher.Library) (199.179.42.123)
> by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 1998 13:33:58 -0000
>From: "FG" <FG@hotmail.com>
>To: <contact@uvv.org>
>Subject: Ascii CFV Questionnaire
>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:34:08 -0500
>Message-ID: <01bd21ba$41ce1360$7b2ab3c7@glaysher.Library>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>
>Could someone there find a moment to email me an ascii
>CFV Questionnaire? I'm under the impression the html
>form on your web page shouldn't be used for format reasons.
>
>Thanks.
>
>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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Copy of the CFV Questionnaire-----------------------------------------------
UVV Pre-CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) for Newsgroup Proposals
****************************************************************
Note: This document is for proponents of newsgroups which have
completed the required initial 21-day discussion period and are
ready for a vote. If you are looking for information about a new
proposal, you need to start with a Request for Discussion (RFD).
The Usenet group mentor program can help with this process; see
<URL:https://www.uvv.org/uvv/group-mentors.html>.
*****************************************************************
A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least 21 days
from the date of the first RFD, or 10 days from any subsequent
RFD, whichever is later. If more than 60 days have passed since
the most recent RFD on the proposal, then another RFD is required
before it can go to vote. The UVV must have time to process your
questionnaire and submit the CFV before the 60 day limit, so plan
to give us at least 10 days to prepare and submit the CFV. Do not
wait until the last minute to provide your answers.
Please -- DO NOT return the completed questionnaire any sooner
than 5 to 7 days prior to the end of the mandatory RFD discussion
period. The answers you provide must reflect the discussion
generated by your RFD(s). If you send it in too soon, we will
simply return it to you and ask you to resubmit it at a later
date when the RFD discussions are more or less complete.
*****************************************************************
Last updated: January 10, 1998
The UseNet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) coordinate all the details
of the newsgroup VOTING process, including two postings of the
CFV and a final RESULT. Your vote will be given to a neutral
member of an experienced cadre of votetakers. In order for this
to work, we need the information requested in this questionnaire.
All groups must have appeared in an official RFD under the same
group names that you are requesting in the CFV. If you are still
in the RFD process, please wait before filling out this form so
that changes based upon the discussion can be incorporated.
Proponents are expected to react to issues raised during the RFD
process and incorporate changes based upon this process; if there
are substantial changes from the last RFD, then you need to
submit another RFD, not this questionnaire. Review Question #1
(in the "before you start" section below) to ensure that you're
in compliance with this requirement.
A few days prior to the end of the mandatory RFD discussion period
is ideal timing for submitting this form since it takes at least a
few days to assign the vote to a volunteer, and then several more
days for the votetaker to prepare and submit the CFV. If you don't
send us this information, it will be assumed that you decided not
to go through with the vote (it often happens).
We will take the answers you provide in this questionnaire and
add the voting instructions, dates, etc. to create the actual
CFV. Preparation and submission of the CFV is our responsibility
not yours. All we need from you is an accurate and properly
completed questionnaire.
Please fill in the requested information and return JUST YOUR
ANSWERS in plain text (ie. no BINHEX, BASE64, HTML, MIME, PGP,
miscellaneous attachments, etc.), 80 columns wide maximum, to
<contact@uvv.org>.
Format Instructions
===================
*****************************************************************
WARNING -- Your completed PQ will be processed into a CFV usable
format via automated scripts. If you don't adhere to the
specified formatting instructions, your PQ will be rejected with
instructions to reformat it and resubmit it. This will result in
extra work for you and a further delay in the submission of your
CFV.
*****************************************************************
Please provide your response to each of the following questions
in the appropriate area immediately following the question. The
area designated for your response is delimited by two hash-lines
(one marked _BEGIN_ and one marked _END_) and contains a "key"
word that indicates the contents the response section. Do not
edit or remove either of the hash-lines or the "key" word, and
make sure that one (and only one) blank line follows the "key"
word and one (and only one) blank line precedes the ending
hash-line.
If a section is not applicable to your proposal (eg. MODERATOR
INFO: for an unmoderated proposal), leave the section in your
reply but remove all information between the two hash-lines
leaving only the "key" word with one blank line between the
"key" word and the ending hash-line. DO NOT leave any bracketed
comments ([]) in the section.
The specific location for your response is identified by a
bracketed comment. Begin your response in the column that
contains the opening bracket ([), but delete the bracket and its
contents from your response. If you are using your mailer to
"reply" to this PQ, make sure that you do not include any "reply
prefixes" (eg. "> ") in the area between the two lines of hash
marks.
DO NOT allow any portion of your response to extend beyond column
78, start a new line instead. One Exception: The "Newsgroup
descriptions" section has a different formatting requirement
which is explained in that paragraph.
The following is an example response:
Assuming that you are using your mailer to reply to this PQ, the
example response format template might look like the following:
>
> #####################################################_BEGIN_#####
> EXAMPLE: [news.group.name_goes_here]
>
> [enter_your_response_here]
>
> #######################################################_END_#####
>
Properly completed, your response should look like the following:
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
EXAMPLE: misc.proposed.group
This group is needed to blah, blah, blah, etc.
#######################################################_END_#####
Note how the mailer reply prefixes ("> ") have been deleted, and
the responses began in the same column as the beginning bracket
([) of the enclosed comment. Also note that there is exactly one
(1) blank line after the "EXAMPLE:" "key" word, and exactly one
(1) blank line before ending hash-line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-CFV Questions
=================
1. Summary of the RFD Discussion.
Please confirm that you participated in the required RFD
discussion. In order to show compliance with the discussion
phase of the newsgroup creation process, please give a brief
description of the input that was given to you in response to
the RFD, and what changes were made as a result of them. You
do not have to implement every suggestion, but you must have
answered them. Also indicate what your answers were if any
serious suggestions were not implemented.
For simple non-controversial proposals, it is acceptable to
say, "All input was positive.", but only if that's true.
NOTE: If, based on the input you've received, it appears that
changes to the name(s) (including typos), charter(s), or
moderator information of any of the proposed newsgroup(s) are
necessary, you must make those changes and issue another RFD and
allow discussion of the new RFD before submitting this form.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
SUMMARY:
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
2. Proposed newsgroup names.
List the proposed newsgroup name(s) in alphabetical order,
indicate whether each group is unmoderated or moderated, and
add any applicable comments. DO NOT put the words "moderated"
or "unmoderated" in parentheses.
Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example:
comp.foo.bar.announce moderated
comp.foo.bar.misc unmoderated (renames comp.foo.bar)
comp.foo.bar.test unmoderated
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
PROPOSED NAMES:
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
3. Newsgroup descriptions.
Please provide a one-line description of each newsgroup, listed
in alphabetical order. Avoid phrases like "Discussion of..."
since we already know that. This is normally the same description
contained in the latest RFD.
Enter the group name, then a tab (you must tab past column 24).
You now have until the end of an 80-character line to enter a
description for the system newsgroups files (which you must end
with a period). If applicable, there is only ONE space between
the period (.) and "(Moderated)". The "(Moderated)" phrase does
not count in the 80 character limit.
Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example:
comp.foo.bar.announce Announcements about the foo bar system. (Moderated)
comp.foo.bar.misc The foo bar system in general.
comp.foo.bar.test Testing the foo bar system.
( you MUST tab to here ^ [minimum] using a tabstop of 8 )
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEWSGROUP DESCRIPTIONS:
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
4. Proponent/Mentor name and address.
List the proponent's name and email address for this vote
(usually you). If there is more than one proponent, list them on
separate lines in the same format with the "primary" proponent
listed first. If you are working with a Group Mentor, please
include that person's name and email address also. If you do not
have a Mentor, please delete that entire line in your response.
Please use the form "name <account@host.domain>". For example:
Proponent: John Foo <foo@bar.com>
Proponent: Dave Smith <smith@bar.com>
Mentor: Jane Doe <jdoe@bar.com>
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
PROPONENT:
Proponent: [enter_your_response_here]
Mentor: [enter_your_response_here___DELETE_this_entire_line_if_no_mentor]
#######################################################_END_#####
5. Newsgroup rationale.
A rationale is a short paragraph or two explaining why you think
this group creation/reorganization/whatever should pass. This
paragraph will be used for the "Rationale" section of the CFV.
This is not optional and is quite important in convincing
potential voters to cast a positive vote. Multi-group proposals
must have a rationale section for each group. This information
is usually taken directly from the most recent RFD.
Please provide a rationale for each newsgroup. Duplicate this
section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up
to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for
multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END RATIONALE."
comment at the end of your rationale.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
RATIONALE: [news.group.name_goes_here]
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
6. Newsgroup charter.
What is/are the charter(s) for the newsgroup(s)? This includes
the name of the newsgroup(s), what is acceptable and unacceptable
on the newsgroup(s), and what exactly is going on if this is a
reorganization. For moderated newsgroup(s), any moderation policy
must be included in this section. All of this information can
usually be taken directly from the most recent RFD. If the
information has changed substantially since the last RFD, then a
new RFD should be prepared instead of proceeding with a CFV. A new
RFD is mandatory if any changes to a newsgroup name are made (no
matter how minor).
Please provide a charter for each newsgroup. Duplicate this
section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up
to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for
multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END CHARTER." comment
at the end of your charter.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
CHARTER: [news.group.name_goes_here]
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
7. Moderator information.
If any of the groups are moderated, give the names of their
moderators, their mail addresses, and the addresses they will be
using to moderate the group. If there is more than one
moderator, then EACH moderator's name and address info line must
begin with the "Moderator:" header.
NOTE 1: You MUST use quotes (") if there is a period (.) in the
moderator's listed name and you elect to use the 1st
address format listed in the example below.
NOTE 2: DO NOT enclose the contact or submission addresses in
brackets (<>).
NOTE 3: Failure to provide at least one moderator and both
"contact" and "submission" addresses will cause your PQ
submission to be rejected.
For example:
Moderator: "R. Frobs" <rfrobs@host.domain> <-- quotes required
Moderator: jdoe@host.domain (J. Doe) <-- do not use quotes
Administrative contact address: chess-request@host.domain
Article submission address: chess@host.domain
Please provide the moderator info for every moderated newsgroup.
Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END
MODERATOR INFO." comment at the end of your moderator info.
NOTE: Do NOT include any moderation policy in this section. Moderation
policy information must be provided in the Charter section above.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
MODERATOR INFO: [news.group.name_goes_here]
Moderator: [enter_your_response_here___ADD_additional_entries_if_required]
Administrative contact address: [enter_your_response_here]
Article submission address: [enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
8. Newsgroups gatewayed to mailing lists.
If any groups are going to be gatewayed with a mailing list, give
the name and address of the mailing list.
Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
GATEWAYS: [news.group.name_goes_here]
Gateway mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here]
Submission address: [enter_your_response_here]
Request address: [enter_your_response_here_(this_entry_line_is_optional)]
#######################################################_END_#####
9. CFV newsgroup distribution.
These are usually the same newsgroups where you posted the RFD
because you don't want the vote to come as a surprise to any
unsuspecting newsgroups. There needs to be a good reason to add
newsgroups to the CFV distribution.
NOTE: The CFV will normally only be posted to the Big 8 (comp,
humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk) and ALT
newsgroups. Other requested newsgroup hierarchies may be
deleted by the news.announce.newsgroup moderator before
the CFV is actually posted.
IMPORTANT! CFVs are always crossposted to news.announce.newgroups
and news.groups. If these, plus the Newsgroups: header name,
your other newsgroups, and the commas (",") that separate each
newsgroup name, total more than 200 characters, there are several
Usenet sites which will not be able to handle the CFV and will
discard it. Even though 200 characters are available, shorter
newsgroup lists and less crossposting are generally a good idea.
We will NOT accept a Newsgroups: header that exceeds 200
characters because the "news.announce.newgroups" moderator's
posting scripts will simply reject it. When you are doing your
math to determine the length of the Newsgroups: header line,
don't forget that the header name and the commas that separate
the newsgroup names, must be counted as part of the allowed 200
characters.
Since "Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups," is 48
characters in length, that leaves you with 152 characters for
your desired newsgroup names and the required separating commas.
When you enter your newsgroups below, please enter the newsgroups
in alphabetical order, only put one newsgroup on each line, and
use as many lines as necessary (without exceeding the max
character count). When you count the characters in your entry,
don't include any spaces after the commas. When we reformat your
submission, the newsgroup names will be joined into one long
header line with no spaces after the commas.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEWSGROUPS:
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,
[enter_your_1st_newsgroup_here],
[enter_your_next_newsgroup_here],
[enter_your_next_newsgroup_here],
[enter_your_last_newsgroup_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
10. New crosspostings.
There needs to be a good reason for adding newsgroups to the CFV
distribution.
Which, if any, newsgroups listed in the previous response were
not crossposted to in the RFD(s) (if none, say "none")?.
Please provide a good reason for adding each newsgroup that you
list.
Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
necessary for multiple entries.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEW CROSSPOSTS:
New Newsgroup: [enter_your_response_here]
Reason: [enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
11. Moderated crossposted newsgroups.
In addition to "news.announce.newgroups", which (if any) of the
newsgroups in your requested distribution listing are moderated
(if none, say "none")?. If more than one newsgroup is moderated,
list each one on a separate line.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
MODERATED NEWSGROUPS:
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
12. Pointer messages to newsgroups.
If you plan to post "pointers" to the CFV in additional
newsgroups, list the intended newsgroups here (if none, say
"none"). If you plan to post "pointers" to more than one
newsgroup, list each one on a separate line.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
POINTER MESSAGES:
[enter_your_response_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
13. CFV submission to mailing lists.
Do you want us to send the CFV to any mailing lists? Although
allowed, the use of mailing lists is strongly discouraged due to
the numerous voting problems that continually arise during the
CFVs that use them. If you feel that mailing lists are
essential, please keep the number of lists requested to an
absolute minimum. More lists mean more potential problems, and
it becomes more difficult to find a volunteer votetaker to run
your proposal.
These mailing lists have to be named up front, so please give
their names and submission addresses so that this information can
be included in the CFV. You may wish to include the request
address as well as the posting address, so anyone who is
interested and wants to join won't send messages to the mailing
list itself.
IMPORTANT! For each mailing list you name, we need to know
whether or not the list honors Reply-To: headers in messages
sent to it, and whether or not non-members can directly post
messages to the list. CFVs can only be posted to mailing lists
that allow the votetaker to directly post messages, so if the
list is closed to non-members, the actual CFV will not be
posted to that list (unless the votetaker happens to also be a
member of the closed list). For closed lists, your only option
is for you to post a "pointer" message to the list to advise the
members that a CFV is in progress and to tell them where they can
find a copy of the actual CFV. The intent to use "pointer"
messages in mailing lists does not need to be listed in the CFV.
Please provide the following information and answer the questions
for each mailing list you name. The CFV will not be sent to any
mailing lists missing this information, or to closed mailing lists
(unless the votetaker happens to be a member).
Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
necessary if you're requesting more than one mailing list
submission.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
MAILING LISTS:
Mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here]
Submission address: [enter_your_response_here]
Request address (optional): [enter_your_response_here]
List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_response_here]
List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_here]
#######################################################_END_#####
Do not modify or delete this final entry.
#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
PQ Date Stamp: 980110
#######################################################_END_#####
Thanks,
UVV Coordinators
<contact@uvv.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 7:11 AM
To: Neil Crellin
Subject: Re: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
I'm aware that the vote taker posts the CFV
and the proponent only the pointers. Sorry to
mistype and imply otherwise.
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Crellin <neilc@wallaby.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 15, 1998 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
>"FG" <FG@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread.
>> I appreciate your confirming or adding to my
>> understanding of the CFV procedure. I'll post the
>> CFV and pointers only to those newsgroups already
>> listed on the 4th and last RFD.
>
>No, you won't. You'll submit the questionaire to the UVV as directed
>by the Guidelines, the UVV will assign a votetaker, and the votetaker
>will post the CFV based on the responses to the PQ you've submitted.
>
>If you do it your way, it won't work anyway.
>
>-Neil Crellin
>Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai disclaimer
D E Siegel wrote in message
<19980115121300.HAA02410@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>"It should be remembered that NO Usenet newsgroup can
>>legitimately be considered an official organ of any
>>private religious or other body
>
>I belive that this is incorrect, and that some (moderated) groups do in
fact
>serve as official or near official organs for particular private groups.
>Comp.org.acm is one such group. I admit that I am not aware of any
examples in
>soc.religion.*
I believe soc.religion.bahai is considered an "official or near
official" organ of the Bahai Faith by many Bahais. There are
many reasons why this is that have been discussed in the past.
>
>
>
> -David E. Siegel
> Siegel@ACM.ORG
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Working on Questionnaire for CFV
I'm aware that the votetaker posts the CFV
and the proponent only the pointers. Sorry to
mistype and imply otherwise.
--
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>
Neil Crellin wrote in message ...
>"FG" <FG@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread.
>> I appreciate your confirming or adding to my
>> understanding of the CFV procedure. I'll post the
>> CFV and pointers only to those newsgroups already
>> listed on the 4th and last RFD.
>
>No, you won't. You'll submit the questionaire to the UVV as directed
>by the Guidelines, the UVV will assign a votetaker, and the votetaker
>will post the CFV based on the responses to the PQ you've submitted.
>
>If you do it your way, it won't work anyway.
>
>-Neil Crellin
>Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 9:23 AM
To: UVV
Subject: Votetaker: talk.religion.bahai
I should soon be sending in the Questionnaire for talk.religion.bahai.
May I request that the previous votetaker, Jim Davis, be assigned,
if he's willing to serve again? He has had the experience of handling
the first interest poll for talk.religion.bahai.
While I now entirely trust the UVV's choice in this matter, last time,
I was initially worried about the impartiality of Mr. Davis merely
because of my experience with Bahais opposed to the newsgroup
and for no reasons whatsoever pertaining to him or the UVV.
I came to realize those fears were improper and unnecessary
and take this opportunity to apologize again to him and the UVV.
Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of Usenet.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 10:52 AM
To: UVV
Subject: UVV CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ): talk.religion.bahai
>UVV Pre-CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) for Newsgroup Proposals
>****************************************************************
>
>Note: This document is for proponents of newsgroups which have
>completed the required initial 21-day discussion period and are
>ready for a vote. If you are looking for information about a new
>proposal, you need to start with a Request for Discussion (RFD).
>The Usenet group mentor program can help with this process; see
><URL:https://www.uvv.org/uvv/group-mentors.html>.
>
>*****************************************************************
>A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least 21 days
>from the date of the first RFD, or 10 days from any subsequent
>RFD, whichever is later. If more than 60 days have passed since
>the most recent RFD on the proposal, then another RFD is required
>before it can go to vote. The UVV must have time to process your
>questionnaire and submit the CFV before the 60 day limit, so plan
>to give us at least 10 days to prepare and submit the CFV. Do not
>wait until the last minute to provide your answers.
>
>Please -- DO NOT return the completed questionnaire any sooner
>than 5 to 7 days prior to the end of the mandatory RFD discussion
>period. The answers you provide must reflect the discussion
>generated by your RFD(s). If you send it in too soon, we will
>simply return it to you and ask you to resubmit it at a later
>date when the RFD discussions are more or less complete.
>*****************************************************************
>
>Last updated: January 10, 1998
>
>
>The UseNet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) coordinate all the details
>of the newsgroup VOTING process, including two postings of the
>CFV and a final RESULT. Your vote will be given to a neutral
>member of an experienced cadre of votetakers. In order for this
>to work, we need the information requested in this questionnaire.
>
>All groups must have appeared in an official RFD under the same
>group names that you are requesting in the CFV. If you are still
>in the RFD process, please wait before filling out this form so
>that changes based upon the discussion can be incorporated.
>Proponents are expected to react to issues raised during the RFD
>process and incorporate changes based upon this process; if there
>are substantial changes from the last RFD, then you need to
>submit another RFD, not this questionnaire. Review Question #1
>(in the "before you start" section below) to ensure that you're
>in compliance with this requirement.
>
>A few days prior to the end of the mandatory RFD discussion period
>is ideal timing for submitting this form since it takes at least a
>few days to assign the vote to a volunteer, and then several more
>days for the votetaker to prepare and submit the CFV. If you don't
>send us this information, it will be assumed that you decided not
>to go through with the vote (it often happens).
>
>We will take the answers you provide in this questionnaire and
>add the voting instructions, dates, etc. to create the actual
>CFV. Preparation and submission of the CFV is our responsibility
>not yours. All we need from you is an accurate and properly
>completed questionnaire.
>
>Please fill in the requested information and return JUST YOUR
>ANSWERS in plain text (ie. no BINHEX, BASE64, HTML, MIME, PGP,
>miscellaneous attachments, etc.), 80 columns wide maximum, to
><contact@uvv.org>.
>
>
>Format Instructions
>===================
>
>*****************************************************************
>WARNING -- Your completed PQ will be processed into a CFV usable
>format via automated scripts. If you don't adhere to the
>specified formatting instructions, your PQ will be rejected with
>instructions to reformat it and resubmit it. This will result in
>extra work for you and a further delay in the submission of your
>CFV.
>*****************************************************************
>
>Please provide your response to each of the following questions
>in the appropriate area immediately following the question. The
>area designated for your response is delimited by two hash-lines
>(one marked _BEGIN_ and one marked _END_) and contains a "key"
>word that indicates the contents the response section. Do not
>edit or remove either of the hash-lines or the "key" word, and
>make sure that one (and only one) blank line follows the "key"
>word and one (and only one) blank line precedes the ending
>hash-line.
>
>If a section is not applicable to your proposal (eg. MODERATOR
>INFO: for an unmoderated proposal), leave the section in your
>reply but remove all information between the two hash-lines
>leaving only the "key" word with one blank line between the
>"key" word and the ending hash-line. DO NOT leave any bracketed
>comments ([]) in the section.
>
>The specific location for your response is identified by a
>bracketed comment. Begin your response in the column that
>contains the opening bracket ([), but delete the bracket and its
>contents from your response. If you are using your mailer to
>"reply" to this PQ, make sure that you do not include any "reply
>prefixes" (eg. "> ") in the area between the two lines of hash
>marks.
>
>DO NOT allow any portion of your response to extend beyond column
>78, start a new line instead. One Exception: The "Newsgroup
>descriptions" section has a different formatting requirement
>which is explained in that paragraph.
>
>The following is an example response:
>
>Assuming that you are using your mailer to reply to this PQ, the
>example response format template might look like the following:
>>
>> #####################################################_BEGIN_#####
>> EXAMPLE: [news.group.name_goes_here]
>>
>> [enter_your_response_here]
>>
>> #######################################################_END_#####
>>
>
>Properly completed, your response should look like the following:
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
>EXAMPLE: misc.proposed.group
>
>This group is needed to blah, blah, blah, etc.
>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>Note how the mailer reply prefixes ("> ") have been deleted, and
>the responses began in the same column as the beginning bracket
>([) of the enclosed comment. Also note that there is exactly one
>(1) blank line after the "EXAMPLE:" "key" word, and exactly one
>(1) blank line before ending hash-line.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Pre-CFV Questions
>=================
>
>
>1. Summary of the RFD Discussion.
>
>Please confirm that you participated in the required RFD
>discussion. In order to show compliance with the discussion
>phase of the newsgroup creation process, please give a brief
>description of the input that was given to you in response to
>the RFD, and what changes were made as a result of them. You
>do not have to implement every suggestion, but you must have
>answered them. Also indicate what your answers were if any
>serious suggestions were not implemented.
>
>For simple non-controversial proposals, it is acceptable to
>say, "All input was positive.", but only if that's true.
>
>NOTE: If, based on the input you've received, it appears that
>changes to the name(s) (including typos), charter(s), or
>moderator information of any of the proposed newsgroup(s) are
>necessary, you must make those changes and issue another RFD and
>allow discussion of the new RFD before submitting this form.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
SUMMARY: talk.religion.bahai
It's extremely difficult to summarize the discussion for
talk.religion.bahai. The first RFD was posted on October 20, 1997,
with three subsequent RFDs. I did participate in the discussion
which ranged over a large number of issues. Several issues
perhaps have dominated the discussion: covenant breaking (a kind
of Bahai heresy),a statement regarding standards of Bahai conduct,
censorship, and a "disclaimer" that talk.religion.bahai would not be
an official organ of any religion. The response was often made that
an unmoderated newsgroup cannot properly prevent people
declared by Bahai institutions as covenant breakers from posting to
trb. The responsibility for responding to these people lies with the
Bahai institutions themselves, not the proponents. "Standards of
Bahai conduct" were roughly equated with netiquette, including
proper observance of Usenet voting procedure. The censorship that
many Bahais and non-Bahais have felt exists on soc.religion.bahai
was the impetus behind the first interest poll on talk.religion.bahai
as well as this one. Many people stated censorship there continues
to be a problem and trb is needed very much as an alternative
newsgroup. Many incidents during the discussion period
corroborated this perception further for various participants. The
"disclaimer" was immeditately seen as an attempt by some
Bahais to discredit and undermine talk.religion.bahai in its very
Charter by undermining its credibility from the beginning and
establishing soc.religion.bahai as the de facto "official" and
orthodox newsgroup. A general enough statement was eventually
found to satisfy most people.
>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>2. Proposed newsgroup names.
>
>List the proposed newsgroup name(s) in alphabetical order,
>indicate whether each group is unmoderated or moderated, and
>add any applicable comments. DO NOT put the words "moderated"
>or "unmoderated" in parentheses.
>
>Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example:
>
>comp.foo.bar.announce moderated
>comp.foo.bar.misc unmoderated (renames comp.foo.bar)
>comp.foo.bar.test unmoderated
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
PROPOSED NAMES:
talk.religion.bahai
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>3. Newsgroup descriptions.
>
>Please provide a one-line description of each newsgroup, listed
>in alphabetical order. Avoid phrases like "Discussion of..."
>since we already know that. This is normally the same description
>contained in the latest RFD.
>
>Enter the group name, then a tab (you must tab past column 24).
>You now have until the end of an 80-character line to enter a
>description for the system newsgroups files (which you must end
>with a period). If applicable, there is only ONE space between
>the period (.) and "(Moderated)". The "(Moderated)" phrase does
>not count in the 80 character limit.
>
>Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example:
>
>comp.foo.bar.announce Announcements about the foo bar system. (Moderated)
>comp.foo.bar.misc The foo bar system in general.
>comp.foo.bar.test Testing the foo bar system.
> ( you MUST tab to here ^ [minimum] using a tabstop of 8 )
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEWSGROUP DESCRIPTIONS:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>4. Proponent/Mentor name and address.
>
>List the proponent's name and email address for this vote
>(usually you). If there is more than one proponent, list them on
>separate lines in the same format with the "primary" proponent
>listed first. If you are working with a Group Mentor, please
>include that person's name and email address also. If you do not
>have a Mentor, please delete that entire line in your response.
>Please use the form "name <account@host.domain>". For example:
>
>Proponent: John Foo <foo@bar.com>
>Proponent: Dave Smith <smith@bar.com>
>Mentor: Jane Doe <jdoe@bar.com>
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>5. Newsgroup rationale.
>
>A rationale is a short paragraph or two explaining why you think
>this group creation/reorganization/whatever should pass. This
>paragraph will be used for the "Rationale" section of the CFV.
>This is not optional and is quite important in convincing
>potential voters to cast a positive vote. Multi-group proposals
>must have a rationale section for each group. This information
>is usually taken directly from the most recent RFD.
>
>Please provide a rationale for each newsgroup. Duplicate this
>section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up
>to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for
>multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END RATIONALE."
>comment at the end of your rationale.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who
voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>6. Newsgroup charter.
>
>What is/are the charter(s) for the newsgroup(s)? This includes
>the name of the newsgroup(s), what is acceptable and unacceptable
>on the newsgroup(s), and what exactly is going on if this is a
>reorganization. For moderated newsgroup(s), any moderation policy
>must be included in this section. All of this information can
>usually be taken directly from the most recent RFD. If the
>information has changed substantially since the last RFD, then a
>new RFD should be prepared instead of proceeding with a CFV. A new
>RFD is mandatory if any changes to a newsgroup name are made (no
>matter how minor).
>
>Please provide a charter for each newsgroup. Duplicate this
>section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up
>to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for
>multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END CHARTER." comment
>at the end of your charter.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>7. Moderator information.
>
>If any of the groups are moderated, give the names of their
>moderators, their mail addresses, and the addresses they will be
>using to moderate the group. If there is more than one
>moderator, then EACH moderator's name and address info line must
>begin with the "Moderator:" header.
>
>NOTE 1: You MUST use quotes (") if there is a period (.) in the
> moderator's listed name and you elect to use the 1st
> address format listed in the example below.
>NOTE 2: DO NOT enclose the contact or submission addresses in
> brackets (<>).
>NOTE 3: Failure to provide at least one moderator and both
> "contact" and "submission" addresses will cause your PQ
> submission to be rejected.
>
>For example:
>
>Moderator: "R. Frobs" <rfrobs@host.domain> <-- quotes required
>Moderator: jdoe@host.domain (J. Doe) <-- do not use quotes
>Administrative contact address: chess-request@host.domain
>Article submission address: chess@host.domain
>
>Please provide the moderator info for every moderated newsgroup.
>Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
>beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
>necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END
>MODERATOR INFO." comment at the end of your moderator info.
>
>NOTE: Do NOT include any moderation policy in this section. Moderation
> policy information must be provided in the Charter section above.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
>MODERATOR INFO: [news.group.name_goes_here]
>
>Moderator: [enter_your_response_here___ADD_additional_entries_if_required]
>Administrative contact address: [enter_your_response_here]
>Article submission address: [enter_your_response_here]
>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>8. Newsgroups gatewayed to mailing lists.
>
>If any groups are going to be gatewayed with a mailing list, give
>the name and address of the mailing list.
>
>Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
>beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
>necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
>GATEWAYS: [news.group.name_goes_here]
>
>Gateway mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here]
>Submission address: [enter_your_response_here]
>Request address: [enter_your_response_here_(this_entry_line_is_optional)]
>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>9. CFV newsgroup distribution.
>
>These are usually the same newsgroups where you posted the RFD
>because you don't want the vote to come as a surprise to any
>unsuspecting newsgroups. There needs to be a good reason to add
>newsgroups to the CFV distribution.
>
>NOTE: The CFV will normally only be posted to the Big 8 (comp,
> humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk) and ALT
> newsgroups. Other requested newsgroup hierarchies may be
> deleted by the news.announce.newsgroup moderator before
> the CFV is actually posted.
>
>IMPORTANT! CFVs are always crossposted to news.announce.newgroups
>and news.groups. If these, plus the Newsgroups: header name,
>your other newsgroups, and the commas (",") that separate each
>newsgroup name, total more than 200 characters, there are several
>Usenet sites which will not be able to handle the CFV and will
>discard it. Even though 200 characters are available, shorter
>newsgroup lists and less crossposting are generally a good idea.
>
>We will NOT accept a Newsgroups: header that exceeds 200
>characters because the "news.announce.newgroups" moderator's
>posting scripts will simply reject it. When you are doing your
>math to determine the length of the Newsgroups: header line,
>don't forget that the header name and the commas that separate
>the newsgroup names, must be counted as part of the allowed 200
>characters.
>
>Since "Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups," is 48
>characters in length, that leaves you with 152 characters for
>your desired newsgroup names and the required separating commas.
>
>When you enter your newsgroups below, please enter the newsgroups
>in alphabetical order, only put one newsgroup on each line, and
>use as many lines as necessary (without exceeding the max
>character count). When you count the characters in your entry,
>don't include any spaces after the commas. When we reformat your
>submission, the newsgroup names will be joined into one long
>header line with no spaces after the commas.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEWSGROUPS:
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,
alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.israel,
soc.religion.bahai,
soc.rights.human,
talk.religion.misc
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>10. New crosspostings.
>
>There needs to be a good reason for adding newsgroups to the CFV
>distribution.
>
>Which, if any, newsgroups listed in the previous response were
>not crossposted to in the RFD(s) (if none, say "none")?.
>
>Please provide a good reason for adding each newsgroup that you
>list.
>
>Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
>beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
>necessary for multiple entries.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
NEW CROSSPOSTS:
none
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>11. Moderated crossposted newsgroups.
>
>In addition to "news.announce.newgroups", which (if any) of the
>newsgroups in your requested distribution listing are moderated
>(if none, say "none")?. If more than one newsgroup is moderated,
>list each one on a separate line.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
MODERATED NEWSGROUPS:
soc.religion.bahai
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>12. Pointer messages to newsgroups.
>
>If you plan to post "pointers" to the CFV in additional
>newsgroups, list the intended newsgroups here (if none, say
>"none"). If you plan to post "pointers" to more than one
>newsgroup, list each one on a separate line.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
POINTER MESSAGES:
a.bsu.religion,
alt.religion,
alt.religion.islam,
news.admin.censorship,
soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,
soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,
soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,
soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,
uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.misc,
uk.religion.other-faiths
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>13. CFV submission to mailing lists.
>
>Do you want us to send the CFV to any mailing lists? Although
>allowed, the use of mailing lists is strongly discouraged due to
>the numerous voting problems that continually arise during the
>CFVs that use them. If you feel that mailing lists are
>essential, please keep the number of lists requested to an
>absolute minimum. More lists mean more potential problems, and
>it becomes more difficult to find a volunteer votetaker to run
>your proposal.
>
>These mailing lists have to be named up front, so please give
>their names and submission addresses so that this information can
>be included in the CFV. You may wish to include the request
>address as well as the posting address, so anyone who is
>interested and wants to join won't send messages to the mailing
>list itself.
>
>IMPORTANT! For each mailing list you name, we need to know
>whether or not the list honors Reply-To: headers in messages
>sent to it, and whether or not non-members can directly post
>messages to the list. CFVs can only be posted to mailing lists
>that allow the votetaker to directly post messages, so if the
>list is closed to non-members, the actual CFV will not be
>posted to that list (unless the votetaker happens to also be a
>member of the closed list). For closed lists, your only option
>is for you to post a "pointer" message to the list to advise the
>members that a CFV is in progress and to tell them where they can
>find a copy of the actual CFV. The intent to use "pointer"
>messages in mailing lists does not need to be listed in the CFV.
>
>Please provide the following information and answer the questions
>for each mailing list you name. The CFV will not be sent to any
>mailing lists missing this information, or to closed mailing lists
>(unless the votetaker happens to be a member).
>
>Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the
>beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as
>necessary if you're requesting more than one mailing list
>submission.
>
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
MAILING LISTS:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address (optional): major@johnco.cc.ks.us
List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes
List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address (optional):smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes
List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address (optional): jsgreen@umich.edu
List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes
List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes
>
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>
>Do not modify or delete this final entry.
>#####################################################_BEGIN_#####
>PQ Date Stamp: 980110
>#######################################################_END_#####
>
>Thanks,
>UVV Coordinators
><contact@uvv.org>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
My mistake and apologies....
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>
----------
From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 3:13 PM
To: FG
Cc: UVV Admin List
Subject: Questionnaire received: talk.religion.bahai
Ref: talk.religion.bahai
Your questionnaire was received and is on file.
Please be patient while we locate a votetaker for your proposal. This
may take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks depending
on the number of current votes in progress. As the active CFVs conclude,
a votetaker will eventually become available to handle your proposal.
You can monitor the UVV Daily Status report in "news.groups" to see when
and who is assigned as the votetaker for your proposal.
-- Bill Aten <bill@netagw.com>
Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers
UseNet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page:
<URL:https://www.uvv.org/>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 1998 10:53 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Talk.religion.bahai Questionnaire sent in & acknowledged....
Okay, I've sent in the Questionnaire and Bill Aten has acknowledged
receipt of it for the UVV.... Talk.religion.bahai now has to wait it's turn
for a voluntary votetaker to become available and be assigned. When
one is assigned, it should appear in the UVV Daily status reports for
CFVs.
Coincidentally, today, January 17th, marks one full year since the
posting of the first RFD for talk.religion.bahai....
Dejanews shows 5,374 postings to alt.religion.bahai....
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 1998 10:53 AM
Subject: Talk.religion.bahai Questionnaire sent in & acknowledged....
Okay, I've sent in the Questionnaire and Bill Aten has acknowledged
receipt of it for the UVV.... Talk.religion.bahai now has to wait it's turn
for a voluntary votetaker to become available and be assigned. When
one is assigned, it should appear in the UVV Daily status reports for
CFVs.
Coincidentally, today, January 17th, marks one full year since the
posting of the first RFD for talk.religion.bahai....
Dejanews shows 5,374 postings to alt.religion.bahai....
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 7:57 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Thanks, Ron, for speaking up on this issue. This person is
just seeking an excuse for voting NO in my opinion. There's
been a lot of discussion about all of this for months and
months. Many people, techies and otherwise, have pointed
out to him there's nothing anyone can do to control the
postings to trb. The irony now is the BCCA kicked me off
all of the private Bahai mailings lists back in November
when things were looking too good for trb....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Rick Schaut wrote:
>>
>> Ron House wrote in message <34C2D9CE.4DAB50A2@usq.edu.au>...
>
>> >"Given up hope"? Did you see my reply to your earlier
>> >query on this matter? If so, why are you implying your
>> >questions have not been answered, if not, then please
>> >ask any questions you like based on my earlier answer
>> >(which I reproduce below) and I'll do my best to answer
>> >them.
>>
>> I saw your earlier post. Its thesis was, primarily, that if I think
there's
>> some problem to address than I, Rick Schaut acting as an individual,
should
>> do something about it. Asside from the fact that any such action on my
part
>> would relieve the proponents of this newsgroup of any responsibility they
>> have to work to address this issue, I still won't act on my own. I would
if
>> I thought this was an issue that could be adequately addressed via an
>> individual's action, I'd do so.
>
>Quite frankly, I think this is a cop out. You want us
>to do something (what?) yet you won't discuss your
>concerns. NO, I won't discuss this on Baha'i email
>lists; this is a Usenet proposal and I will discuss
>it on Usenet. I am not a member of any closed Baha'i
>email lists and I have no intention of becoming so,
>probably only to find you won't tell us your concerns
>there either.
>
>Once again: the proposal is for a forum for DISCUSSION
>OF THE BAHA'I FAITH. It is NOT a proposal for a pro-
>Baha'i publicity channel. I couldn't care less if
>the articles posted to the NG end up supporting or
>refuting the Faith. All I want is a FREE, OPEN place
>where anyone can discuss the topic. It is therefore no
>responsibility of mine to make sure that the NG
>works the way YOU would like it to, least of all
>if you won't tell me what your concerns are.
>
>So, Risk, put up or shut up. Tell us your worries
>so we can discuss them or stop whinging.
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 8:22 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Guy Macon wrote:
>If he won't tell you what his concern is in this newsgroup or in
>private mail, then ignore him. He has decided to not express his
>concern in the appropriate venue. Reasons why a Bahai might want
>to vote yes or no on talk.religion.bahai *IS* on=topic in news.groups.
The issues he says he is concerned about have been extensively
discussed on news.groups since trb began to be addressed there
again.... Dejanews shows 117 messages from August 1 to the
present on a search of the word "covenant".... Earlier, deja showed
91 on "covenant breaker." As a proponent, I believe every
attempt has been made to discuss this issue on news.groups,
in so much as it is relevant to the interest poll on talk.religion.bahai.
Discussing it elsewhere, at this late date, in controlled environments
that are part of the impetus for the creation of trb, would not conform
to commonly acceptable Usenet procedure. The proposal, after all,
was first posted on October 20, 1997....
>Besides, do you really want your Quaker buddy excluded from the
>discussion? Have I not been helpful in this discussion so far?
I definitely don't. Nor anyone else, since trb would be a
newsgroup for non-Bahais as well as Bahais....
Guy, you've been one of the fairest people throughout this
proposal, even when you've occasionally reprimanded me
for my own good....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Guy Macon wrote:
>If he won't tell you what his concern is in this newsgroup or in
>private mail, then ignore him. He has decided to not express his
>concern in the appropriate venue. Reasons why a Bahai might want
>to vote yes or no on talk.religion.bahai *IS* on=topic in news.groups.
The issues he says he is concerned about have been extensively
discussed on news.groups since trb began to be addressed there
again.... Dejanews shows 117 messages from August 1 to the
present on a search of the word "covenant".... Earlier, deja showed
91 on "covenant breaker." As a proponent, I believe every
attempt has been made to discuss this issue on news.groups,
in so much as it is relevant to the interest poll on talk.religion.bahai.
Discussing it elsewhere, at this late date, in controlled environments
that are part of the impetus for the creation of trb, would not conform
to commonly acceptable Usenet procedure. The proposal, after all,
was first posted on October 20, 1997....
>Besides, do you really want your Quaker buddy excluded from the
>discussion? Have I not been helpful in this discussion so far?
I definitely don't. Nor anyone else, since trb would be a
newsgroup for non-Bahais as well as Bahais....
Guy, you've been one of the fairest people throughout this
proposal, even when you've occasionally reprimanded me
for my own good....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 8:31 AM
To: softqual@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai Questionnaire sent in & acknowledged....
Use the Advanced Search menu and date your search
from apr 1 97 to the present. I get them all when I do it
this way. Good luck!
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott P. Duncan <softqual@mindspring.com>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, January 17, 1998 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Talk.religion.bahai Questionnaire sent in & acknowledged....
>> Dejanews shows 5,374 postings to alt.religion.bahai....
>
>Perhaps you can help me use www.dejanews.com properly. I
>have not used it before. When I go to Browse Groups and
>type in alt.religion.bahai, I get a page back that says
>only 1219 messages are available for reading. So I assume
>there is some other way to use dejanews to find out about
>the others. Can you let me know how to get access to the
>much larger number you note?
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai disclaimer
T. Spade wrote in message <69u3d5$9t6@drn.zippo.com>...
>In article <885085051.39321608@dejanews.com>, zutetflute@aol.com says...
>>
>>Okay, T. Spade, here is a quote taken directly out of a letter written to
>>me by the moderator of soc.religion. bahai. If it is not an official or
>>quasi-official organ of the Baha'i organization, then why do the
>>counsellors tell the moderator what to post? And why is my faith
>>questioned? The quote, taken out of the letter addressed to me, is below.
>> I posted the whole text on talk.religion.bahai a few weeks ago.
>>
>>"From: boatright@cjnetworks.com (Rick Boatright)
>> Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com
>> To: zutetflute@aol.com (Zutetflute)
>>
>> Dear Andree,
>>
>> Are you a Baha'i? The councellors and the protection board are
>> asking the moderators to be very very careful on this subject. "
Does this constitute Bahai interference in the interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai? At the least, if the above is true, and it's
written by a Mr. Boatright who's a moderator at soc.religion.bahai,
it does add credibility to the claim that srb, and apparently
individuals in the Bahai administration, conceive of it as THE
"official" newsgroup on the Bahai Faith....
>>
>>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a letter)
>Are the Baha'is of Iran -- your nation's largest religious minority --
>included in these aspirations?
In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
[clip]
> Respectfully yours,
>
> THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> Robert Calvin Henderson
> Secretary
>
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>
>
>SOURCE: National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 8:42 AM
To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies
Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami
>Are the Baha'is of Iran -- your nation's largest religious minority --
>included in these aspirations?
In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
[clip]
> Respectfully yours,
>
> THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> Robert Calvin Henderson
> Secretary
>
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>
>
>SOURCE: National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 8:54 AM
Subject: No sense of irony or shame....
In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
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>
--------quoted message begins:
A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT KHATAMI TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
January 13, 1998
His Excellency President Mohammad Khatami
Islamic Republic of Iran
Tehran, Iran
Your Excellency,
We, the American Baha'is, residing in more than seven thousand cities and
towns across the United States and representing all races, cultures and
ethnic origins in our nation, have listened with great interest to your
words addressed to the American people, of which we are an organic part.
Your message prompts us to address you directly, because of your expressed
dedication to the principles of freedom, justice and the rule of law -
principles which, as you noted, are cherished by the American people.
We who enjoy such freedoms hope that our co-religionists in Iran, who have
been deprived of them, will be granted their full rights as law-abiding
citizens of your nation.
We are particularly encouraged by your assertion "that religion and liberty
are consistent and compatible." As you said, "Human experience has taught
us that prosperous life should hinge on three pillars: religiosity,
liberty and justice." These, you concluded, "are the assets and
aspirations of the Islamic Revolution as it enters the twenty-first
century."
Are the Baha'is of Iran - your nation's largest religious
minority - included in these aspirations?
Your explicitly stated determination to fulfill the provisions of the
Iranian Constitution and to establish the rule of law gives us hope that
the freedom of the Baha'i community in Iran openly to practice its religion
will be guaranteed.
May we not expect, in the light of your commitment to human dignity and
freedom, that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution
(A/RES/52/142), which calls for the emancipation of the Baha'i community of
Iran, will now be implemented?
Respectfully yours,
THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
Robert Calvin Henderson
Secretary
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
1320 NINETEENTH ST., N.W., SUITE 701 . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 . 202.833.8990
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 6:01 PM
To: talisman
Subject: Khatami & NSA's open letter....
In the NSA's open letter to the Iranian government, Mr. Henderson asked
President Khatami:
>Are the Baha'is of Iran -- your nation's largest religious minority --
>included in these aspirations?
I would in turn like to ask Mr. Henderson if all Baha'is of all points of
view have really been included in the NSA's aspirations during the past few
years? And if not, isn't his plea to Mr. Khatami somewhat hypocritical?
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 7:44 AM
To: Juan R. I. Cole
Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami
Sigh....
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:28 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Thanks, Emma. As background information, I'll
quote a few things that seem relevant to the discussion
for talk.religion.bahai and might help set it in a fuller
historical context here on news.groups....
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>
------------------------------------
Quoted material begins from https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
Freedom of Expression within the Baha'i Faith
Although Baha'is have been very active in the promotion of freedom of
expression around the world, there are significant restrictions on
freedoms of individual members. These are enforced through
shunning or expelling non-conforming adherents. Some examples are:
[clip]
The Baha'i authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material
written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be
scanned by a review committee of the Baha'i National Spiritual
Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was
a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.
The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
investigations.
One sensitive topic debated on "Talisman" was the exclusion of women
from the Universal House of Justice which some subscribers felt was i
ncompatible with the importance given to the equality of the sexes
within the Baha'i Faith. Some postings argued that the body be opened
up to women; they based their beliefs on their interpretation of
Baha'u'llah's writings. "Talisman" was closed on 1996-MAY. Juan Cole,
now an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
[clip]
Michael McKenny, a fantasy writer from Canada was expelled because
of his views expressed in Emails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Internet References and Mailing Lists
Jonah Winters' Baha'i Academics Resource Area is at:
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/
[clip]
Material on freedom of expression within the Baha'i Faith is available at:
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html and at
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/chafe.html
An official response from the US National Spiritual Assembly to the latter
item is available at: https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/attacks.html
Paul Johnson authored an article on the Talisman discussion group in
1997-Winter edition of Gnosis Magazine.
--------------
Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>Emma
>
>Possible interesting website written from a somewhat neutral point of
>view
>
>https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>
>ps. Some of the Baha'i sites are extremely difficult to navigate with
>lynx (or for that matter monochrome netscape) and don't seem to be
>coded right. https://www.bahai.org/ is a case in point.
>--
>\----
>|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
>|_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Thanks, Emma. As background information, I'll
quote a few things that seem relevant to the discussion
for talk.religion.bahai and might help set it in a fuller
historical context here on news.groups....
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>
------------------------------------
Quoted material begins from https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
Freedom of Expression within the Baha'i Faith
Although Baha'is have been very active in the promotion of freedom of
expression around the world, there are significant restrictions on
freedoms of individual members. These are enforced through
shunning or expelling non-conforming adherents. Some examples are:
[clip]
The Baha'i authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material
written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be
scanned by a review committee of the Baha'i National Spiritual
Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was
a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.
The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
investigations.
One sensitive topic debated on "Talisman" was the exclusion of women
from the Universal House of Justice which some subscribers felt was i
ncompatible with the importance given to the equality of the sexes
within the Baha'i Faith. Some postings argued that the body be opened
up to women; they based their beliefs on their interpretation of
Baha'u'llah's writings. "Talisman" was closed on 1996-MAY. Juan Cole,
now an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
[clip]
Michael McKenny, a fantasy writer from Canada was expelled because
of his views expressed in Emails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Internet References and Mailing Lists
Jonah Winters' Baha'i Academics Resource Area is at:
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/
[clip]
Material on freedom of expression within the Baha'i Faith is available at:
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html and at
https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/chafe.html
An official response from the US National Spiritual Assembly to the latter
item is available at: https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/attacks.html
Paul Johnson authored an article on the Talisman discussion group in
1997-Winter edition of Gnosis Magazine.
--------------
Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>Emma
>
>Possible interesting website written from a somewhat neutral point of
>view
>
>https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>
>ps. Some of the Baha'i sites are extremely difficult to navigate with
>lynx (or for that matter monochrome netscape) and don't seem to be
>coded right. https://www.bahai.org/ is a case in point.
>--
>\----
>|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
>|_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:56 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Chris wrote:
>> As the original proponent isnot able to access the Baha'ai only lists,
>> that would exclude him from any participation.
"Not able" is an understatement. I have been denied access
to Bahai-Discuss and all other similar private Bahai email
lists by a peremptory act of the BCCA.... I have appealed to
the Universal House of Justice several weeks ago, asking
them to investigate the motives of the BCCA, but have still
not heard anything from them.
Ron House wrote:
>This is a good point. Not only does it explain why
>Fred won't discuss the issue on lists, it also points
>up the danger of censored channels, as there is
>ultimately no way to bring the administrators of
>these channels to account for unjust or otherwise
>faulty decisions.
Since I never posted anything to justify such an action
on Bahai-Discuss itself, indeed, I was attacked and
threatened there by two individuals whom the BCCA
protected and may have encouraged, it certainly does
highlight this lack of accountability on Bahai mailing lists....
I believe it further argues for the need for an unmoderated
newsgroup anyone interested in the Bahai Faith could
post to with confidence....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Chris wrote:
>> As the original proponent isnot able to access the Baha'ai only lists,
>> that would exclude him from any participation.
"Not able" is an understatement. I have been denied access
to Bahai-Discuss and all other similar private Bahai email
lists by a peremptory act of the BCCA.... I have appealed to
the Universal House of Justice several weeks ago, asking
them to investigate the motives of the BCCA, but have still
not heard anything from them.
Ron House wrote:
>This is a good point. Not only does it explain why
>Fred won't discuss the issue on lists, it also points
>up the danger of censored channels, as there is
>ultimately no way to bring the administrators of
>these channels to account for unjust or otherwise
>faulty decisions.
Since I never posted anything to justify such an action
on Bahai-Discuss itself, indeed, I was attacked and
threatened there by two individuals whom the BCCA
protected and may have encouraged, it certainly does
highlight this lack of accountability on Bahai mailing lists....
I believe it further argues for the need for an unmoderated
newsgroup anyone interested in the Bahai Faith could
post to with confidence....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:31 AM
To: talisman
Subject: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
Excerpts relevant to the issues concerning talk.religion.bahai....
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>
--------------------------------------------------Quoted material begins:
Gnosis Magazine, Winter 1997
"Baha'i Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
[clip]
Generally regarded as a peaceful, liberal, and forward-looking
movement, Baha'i proclaims itself to be devoted to "independent
investigation of Truth." But it has become the only major religious
group to launch an inquisition against prominent members for their
opinions expressed on an Internet discussion group.
[clip]
In October 1994 the electronic mail list Talisman was created
by Indiana University professor John Walbridge for scholarly
discussion of Baha'i history, doctrines, and current affairs. Walbridge
is a specialist in Islamic philosophy, and his wife Linda, an active
participant in the list, is an anthropologist specializing in contemporary
Islam in the United States; she also teaches at Indiana University.
Talisman's initial core group of participants with scholarly and literary
backgrounds included Juan R. I. Cole, then-director of the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan
and now professor of history there. Two participants were publishers:
Anthony Lee of Kalimat Press, a Baha'i publishing house; and Steven
Scholl of White Cloud Press, publisher of the annual "Common Era:
Best New Writings in Religion" and other interfaith-oriented titles.
Beginning with a dozen or so subscribers, Talisman grew in the first y
ear to more than a hundred, most of whom were not academians.
After eighteen months of existence, Talisman became the focus of a
series of investigations ordered by authorities at the Baha'i World
Center in Haifa, Israel.
[clip]
Another frequent bone of contention was the policy of literature review,
which requires that any Baha'i who writes about the faith for any
publisher submit the work for prior censorship by a "review committee"
composed of the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly in the country of
publication. Scholars were particularly emphatic about wanting to abolish
this policy - which had been deemed "temporary" when introduced early
in this century - on the grounds that it compromises scholarly
independence and integrity.
[clip]
Although the questions and criticisms expressed by the scholars in
Talisman were generally respectful of Baha'i authorities, many of the
newer members of the list became irate that such matters were
discussed at all. The worldwide Baha'i community has rigid controls
for discourse on internal matters, with all publications controlled or
censored by the administration; even mild dissent is regarded as
treasonous.
Complaints may be made through the process of "consultation" with
various levels of administrators, but may not be expressed outside
that context and especially never in public. Thus Talisman offered
participants the first chance to discuss flaws in the Baha'i community
outside administrative channels, and many were shocked by the debate
that ensued. Soon it became common for more conservative Baha'is
to insinuate that the scholars and their sympathizers were "Covenant-
breakers," which is the greatest of sins in Baha'i theology.
[clip]
None of the Talisman scholars challenged the legitimacy of the
governing body, nor did they show sympathy for past "Covenant-
breakers," a few thousand of whom continue in various small sects.
Nevertheless the Talisman discussions were viewed with alarm by
authorities at national Baha'i headquarters in Wilmette, Illinois, and
in Haifa. This generated an investigation by Stephen Birkland, a
member of the Continental Board of Counselors for North America,
acting under direction of the Haifa authorities.
Birkland personally interrogated Langness, Lee, Cole, and John
Walbridge. Scholl agreed to meet with Birkland only on condition
that the meeting be recorded for accuracy, a condition that was
deemed unacceptable. Cole and Walbridge refused a second
meeting requested by Birkland. David Langness had his rights to
voting and attendance at major functions removed by the American
National Spiritual Assembly, which never specified the charges
against him but implied that it was punishing him for a posting he
made on Talisman.
Cole, upon being told he was being investigated for "statements
contrary to the Covenant," resigned his membership, as did Linda
Walbridge after similar remarks. Birkland had chosen to confront
Cole and the Walbridges in late-night telephone calls. The ultimate
fate of Langness, who appealed his punishment to the Universal
ouse of Justice, and John Walbridge, who has not resigned, remains
to be determined. When contacted by e-mail, Birkland declined to
comment on the controversy.
Defending its actions, the Universal House of Justice wrote to a
family member of one of the accused; the letter later appeared
on the front page of the journal "The American Baha'i." It argues
that Talisman was the continuation of a conspiracy born in the mid-
1980s involving a liberal Baha'i journal, "Dialogue," which closed
after Baha'i authorities accused it of being subversive.
The letter goes on to describe the Talisman scholars as a "dissident
group of Baha'is who are attempting to arouse widespread
dissatisfaction in the community and thereby to bring about
changes in the structure and principles of Baha'i administration,
making it accord more closely with their personal notions." It
accuses them of "publicly and privily assailing the institutions of the
Cause" and "generalizing specific accusations of injustice to such an
extent as to accuse the entire system of corruption, not only in practice,
but also in form and theory."
John Walbridge closed Talisman in May of 1996. Juan Cole, now
an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
[clip]
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:31 AM
To: talisman
Subject: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
Excerpts relevant to the issues concerning talk.religion.bahai....
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>
--------------------------------------------------Quoted material begins:
Gnosis Magazine, Winter 1997
"Baha'i Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
[clip]
Generally regarded as a peaceful, liberal, and forward-looking
movement, Baha'i proclaims itself to be devoted to "independent
investigation of Truth." But it has become the only major religious
group to launch an inquisition against prominent members for their
opinions expressed on an Internet discussion group.
[clip]
In October 1994 the electronic mail list Talisman was created
by Indiana University professor John Walbridge for scholarly
discussion of Baha'i history, doctrines, and current affairs. Walbridge
is a specialist in Islamic philosophy, and his wife Linda, an active
participant in the list, is an anthropologist specializing in contemporary
Islam in the United States; she also teaches at Indiana University.
Talisman's initial core group of participants with scholarly and literary
backgrounds included Juan R. I. Cole, then-director of the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan
and now professor of history there. Two participants were publishers:
Anthony Lee of Kalimat Press, a Baha'i publishing house; and Steven
Scholl of White Cloud Press, publisher of the annual "Common Era:
Best New Writings in Religion" and other interfaith-oriented titles.
Beginning with a dozen or so subscribers, Talisman grew in the first y
ear to more than a hundred, most of whom were not academians.
After eighteen months of existence, Talisman became the focus of a
series of investigations ordered by authorities at the Baha'i World
Center in Haifa, Israel.
[clip]
Another frequent bone of contention was the policy of literature review,
which requires that any Baha'i who writes about the faith for any
publisher submit the work for prior censorship by a "review committee"
composed of the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly in the country of
publication. Scholars were particularly emphatic about wanting to abolish
this policy - which had been deemed "temporary" when introduced early
in this century - on the grounds that it compromises scholarly
independence and integrity.
[clip]
Although the questions and criticisms expressed by the scholars in
Talisman were generally respectful of Baha'i authorities, many of the
newer members of the list became irate that such matters were
discussed at all. The worldwide Baha'i community has rigid controls
for discourse on internal matters, with all publications controlled or
censored by the administration; even mild dissent is regarded as
treasonous.
Complaints may be made through the process of "consultation" with
various levels of administrators, but may not be expressed outside
that context and especially never in public. Thus Talisman offered
participants the first chance to discuss flaws in the Baha'i community
outside administrative channels, and many were shocked by the debate
that ensued. Soon it became common for more conservative Baha'is
to insinuate that the scholars and their sympathizers were "Covenant-
breakers," which is the greatest of sins in Baha'i theology.
[clip]
None of the Talisman scholars challenged the legitimacy of the
governing body, nor did they show sympathy for past "Covenant-
breakers," a few thousand of whom continue in various small sects.
Nevertheless the Talisman discussions were viewed with alarm by
authorities at national Baha'i headquarters in Wilmette, Illinois, and
in Haifa. This generated an investigation by Stephen Birkland, a
member of the Continental Board of Counselors for North America,
acting under direction of the Haifa authorities.
Birkland personally interrogated Langness, Lee, Cole, and John
Walbridge. Scholl agreed to meet with Birkland only on condition
that the meeting be recorded for accuracy, a condition that was
deemed unacceptable. Cole and Walbridge refused a second
meeting requested by Birkland. David Langness had his rights to
voting and attendance at major functions removed by the American
National Spiritual Assembly, which never specified the charges
against him but implied that it was punishing him for a posting he
made on Talisman.
Cole, upon being told he was being investigated for "statements
contrary to the Covenant," resigned his membership, as did Linda
Walbridge after similar remarks. Birkland had chosen to confront
Cole and the Walbridges in late-night telephone calls. The ultimate
fate of Langness, who appealed his punishment to the Universal
ouse of Justice, and John Walbridge, who has not resigned, remains
to be determined. When contacted by e-mail, Birkland declined to
comment on the controversy.
Defending its actions, the Universal House of Justice wrote to a
family member of one of the accused; the letter later appeared
on the front page of the journal "The American Baha'i." It argues
that Talisman was the continuation of a conspiracy born in the mid-
1980s involving a liberal Baha'i journal, "Dialogue," which closed
after Baha'i authorities accused it of being subversive.
The letter goes on to describe the Talisman scholars as a "dissident
group of Baha'is who are attempting to arouse widespread
dissatisfaction in the community and thereby to bring about
changes in the structure and principles of Baha'i administration,
making it accord more closely with their personal notions." It
accuses them of "publicly and privily assailing the institutions of the
Cause" and "generalizing specific accusations of injustice to such an
extent as to accuse the entire system of corruption, not only in practice,
but also in form and theory."
John Walbridge closed Talisman in May of 1996. Juan Cole, now
an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
[clip]
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:31 AM
Subject: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
Excerpts relevant to the issues concerning talk.religion.bahai....
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>
--------------------------------------------------Quoted material begins:
Gnosis Magazine, Winter 1997
"Baha'i Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
[clip]
Generally regarded as a peaceful, liberal, and forward-looking
movement, Baha'i proclaims itself to be devoted to "independent
investigation of Truth." But it has become the only major religious
group to launch an inquisition against prominent members for their
opinions expressed on an Internet discussion group.
[clip]
In October 1994 the electronic mail list Talisman was created
by Indiana University professor John Walbridge for scholarly
discussion of Baha'i history, doctrines, and current affairs. Walbridge
is a specialist in Islamic philosophy, and his wife Linda, an active
participant in the list, is an anthropologist specializing in contemporary
Islam in the United States; she also teaches at Indiana University.
Talisman's initial core group of participants with scholarly and literary
backgrounds included Juan R. I. Cole, then-director of the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan
and now professor of history there. Two participants were publishers:
Anthony Lee of Kalimat Press, a Baha'i publishing house; and Steven
Scholl of White Cloud Press, publisher of the annual "Common Era:
Best New Writings in Religion" and other interfaith-oriented titles.
Beginning with a dozen or so subscribers, Talisman grew in the first y
ear to more than a hundred, most of whom were not academians.
After eighteen months of existence, Talisman became the focus of a
series of investigations ordered by authorities at the Baha'i World
Center in Haifa, Israel.
[clip]
Another frequent bone of contention was the policy of literature review,
which requires that any Baha'i who writes about the faith for any
publisher submit the work for prior censorship by a "review committee"
composed of the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly in the country of
publication. Scholars were particularly emphatic about wanting to abolish
this policy - which had been deemed "temporary" when introduced early
in this century - on the grounds that it compromises scholarly
independence and integrity.
[clip]
Although the questions and criticisms expressed by the scholars in
Talisman were generally respectful of Baha'i authorities, many of the
newer members of the list became irate that such matters were
discussed at all. The worldwide Baha'i community has rigid controls
for discourse on internal matters, with all publications controlled or
censored by the administration; even mild dissent is regarded as
treasonous.
Complaints may be made through the process of "consultation" with
various levels of administrators, but may not be expressed outside
that context and especially never in public. Thus Talisman offered
participants the first chance to discuss flaws in the Baha'i community
outside administrative channels, and many were shocked by the debate
that ensued. Soon it became common for more conservative Baha'is
to insinuate that the scholars and their sympathizers were "Covenant-
breakers," which is the greatest of sins in Baha'i theology.
[clip]
None of the Talisman scholars challenged the legitimacy of the
governing body, nor did they show sympathy for past "Covenant-
breakers," a few thousand of whom continue in various small sects.
Nevertheless the Talisman discussions were viewed with alarm by
authorities at national Baha'i headquarters in Wilmette, Illinois, and
in Haifa. This generated an investigation by Stephen Birkland, a
member of the Continental Board of Counselors for North America,
acting under direction of the Haifa authorities.
Birkland personally interrogated Langness, Lee, Cole, and John
Walbridge. Scholl agreed to meet with Birkland only on condition
that the meeting be recorded for accuracy, a condition that was
deemed unacceptable. Cole and Walbridge refused a second
meeting requested by Birkland. David Langness had his rights to
voting and attendance at major functions removed by the American
National Spiritual Assembly, which never specified the charges
against him but implied that it was punishing him for a posting he
made on Talisman.
Cole, upon being told he was being investigated for "statements
contrary to the Covenant," resigned his membership, as did Linda
Walbridge after similar remarks. Birkland had chosen to confront
Cole and the Walbridges in late-night telephone calls. The ultimate
fate of Langness, who appealed his punishment to the Universal
ouse of Justice, and John Walbridge, who has not resigned, remains
to be determined. When contacted by e-mail, Birkland declined to
comment on the controversy.
Defending its actions, the Universal House of Justice wrote to a
family member of one of the accused; the letter later appeared
on the front page of the journal "The American Baha'i." It argues
that Talisman was the continuation of a conspiracy born in the mid-
1980s involving a liberal Baha'i journal, "Dialogue," which closed
after Baha'i authorities accused it of being subversive.
The letter goes on to describe the Talisman scholars as a "dissident
group of Baha'is who are attempting to arouse widespread
dissatisfaction in the community and thereby to bring about
changes in the structure and principles of Baha'i administration,
making it accord more closely with their personal notions." It
accuses them of "publicly and privily assailing the institutions of the
Cause" and "generalizing specific accusations of injustice to such an
extent as to accuse the entire system of corruption, not only in practice,
but also in form and theory."
John Walbridge closed Talisman in May of 1996. Juan Cole, now
an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
[clip]
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:47 AM
To: talisman
Subject: "BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS"
An excerpt from Religion Watch, January 1997 issue,
that may further help illuminate the discussion for
talk.religion.bahai....
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>
------------quoted material begins:
BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS
The Baha'i movement is experiencing growing conflicts and dissent
over its members involvement in computer forums, reports Gnosis,
(Winter), a magazine on esoteric spirituality. While regarded as a
liberal and nondogmatic religion, the worldwide Baha'i community
has enforced "rigid controls for discourse on internal matters, with
all publications controlled or censored by the administration; even
mild dissent is regarded as treasonous," writes K. Paul Johnson.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:47 AM
Subject: "BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS"
An excerpt from Religion Watch, January 1997 issue,
that may further help illuminate the discussion for
talk.religion.bahai....
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>
------------quoted material begins:
BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS
The Baha'i movement is experiencing growing conflicts and dissent
over its members involvement in computer forums, reports Gnosis,
(Winter), a magazine on esoteric spirituality. While regarded as a
liberal and nondogmatic religion, the worldwide Baha'i community
has enforced "rigid controls for discourse on internal matters, with
all publications controlled or censored by the administration; even
mild dissent is regarded as treasonous," writes K. Paul Johnson.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:47 AM
To: talisman
Subject: "BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS"
An excerpt from Religion Watch, January 1997 issue,
that may further help illuminate the discussion for
talk.religion.bahai....
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>
------------quoted material begins:
BAHA'I MOVEMENT TARGETS DISSENTERS
The Baha'i movement is experiencing growing conflicts and dissent
over its members involvement in computer forums, reports Gnosis,
(Winter), a magazine on esoteric spirituality. While regarded as a
liberal and nondogmatic religion, the worldwide Baha'i community
has enforced "rigid controls for discourse on internal matters, with
all publications controlled or censored by the administration; even
mild dissent is regarded as treasonous," writes K. Paul Johnson.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 7:50 AM
To: Juan R. I. Cole
Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami
Nevertheless, please don't rewrite my messages
and then post them without my consent....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Neil Crellin wrote in message ...
>"FG" <FG@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Quoted material begins from https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>> Material on freedom of expression within the Baha'i Faith is available
at:
>> https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html and at
>> https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/chafe.html
>>
>> An official response from the US National Spiritual Assembly to the
latter
>> item is available at: https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/attacks.html
Yeah, I just checked it too. Sorry, I don't what happened to it. I suggest
emailing Jonah Winters at his website at www.interlog.com if you're
interested in locating it.
>
>This latter response appears to no longer be on the server, and the
>link to it on the previous reference dangles. Is there another
>reference?
>
>-Neil Crellin <neilc@stanford.edu>
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
I'd be happy to answer such questions, as I have in the
past, after you explain the following, reposted from
soc.religion.bahai:
>Will the person who has been posting as annie@aol.com please contact
>the moderators with a working mail address for private email?
>-- the moderators
--
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>
Annie wrote in message <01bd27b1$92d26ac0$75b360cf@baha>...
>FG <FG@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><6a7hn4$krb@news1.zippo.com>...
>> Excerpts relevant to the issues concerning talk.religion.bahai....
>
>
>I wish to know, Frederick, the following:
>
>1. Are YOU a Baha'i?
>2. Are YOU a Baha'i in "good" standing?
>3. Are you obedient to your leaders?
>4. Are you faithful to your Faith?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Annie
----------
From: Burl Barer[SMTP:burlb@bmi.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 1998 5:15 AM
To: FG; talisman
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Fred said:
>The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
>created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
>1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
>World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
>investigations....etc.
This is an oft repeated falsehood that does not become true by repetition.
Once AGAIN, let's read the words of Prof. John Walbridge quoted in my
message to him posted on Talisman1:
***
To: jwalbrid <jwalbrid@indiana.edu>
From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
Subject: Re: The End of Talisman
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
>Dear friends:
>
>The time has come for me to close Talisman.
Please note the operative word: me.
Not the NSA, UHJ, ITC, AFL, CIO, ABC, CNN or USDA. The decision is
John's, and he is entitled to do as he pleases in this regard....
***
NO ONE closed down Talisman except Prof. Walbridge, and Talisman was
never really "closed down" at all -- it just changed servers from
indiana.edu to umich.edu and the equally stimulating Irfan and the other
"super-secret" lists just keep on going. And this "investigation" nonsense!
Good heavens! What's to investigate with an email list that any subscriber
can read? No one at Natl or World Centre had to "investigate" Talisman --
folks at the World Centre subscribed to it and got it everyday, as did/do
folks at the Natl Center. In fact, I seem to recall Continental Counsellors
being Talisman subscribers! C'mon, Fred. Don't promulgate falsehoods.
If you want to perpetuate mis-information, please pass along that everyone
who supports Talk.religion.bahai gets a free Chevy Camero, paid for by
FG. I'll take a blue one.
Love
BB
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 1:06 AM
To: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au.uk
Cc: cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu
Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote
I'm writing to let you know that I will be handling the vote for the
proposed group talk.religion.bahai. There are a few things I need to
tell you before the vote starts:
* Do not distribute the CFV; don't mail it, post it, or put it on
the web. I'll be happy to mail it to anyone who wants it. Even
more importantly, do *not* distribute edited or partial copies of
the CFV or voting instructions; this will result in invalidation
of your ballot and all the ballots resulting from your
distribution, or in the cancellation of the entire vote.
* Under no circumstances can I make information on the progress of
the vote available before the RESULT post appears. If this
information were to get out, it would be grounds for cancelling
the vote.
* Since I can't comment on the substance of the proposal, I'll refer
any voters with questions or comments about it to you. I will be
answering any questions people have about voting procedures; feel
free to refer these questions to me.
* As much as possible, please refrain from campaigning during the
voting period and let real levels of interest drive voters. Be
aware that proponent campaigning can cause a voter backlash and
produce the opposite result of that intended. If you do campaign,
make sure to do it properly: Place *pointers* to the CFV in
groups where you can be reasonably sure people will be interested
in the topic.
My next message to you will contain a draft CFV. Please check it
carefully and let me know if you see any errors you'd like me to fix.
I need for you to confirm that the information about the proposal is
correct before I can submit the CFV for publication.
Let me know if you have any questions; I'll be happy to pass on any
information I have about the CFV process.
Rebecca G. McQuitty
Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 1:09 AM
To: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk; FG@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au.uk
Cc: cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu
Subject: DRAFT CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Please confirm that the information about the proposed group is correct,
or let me know of any errors you find.
Some parts of the CFV cannot be filled in until just before posting;
they are marked with the string "!!!". Don't worry about these.
Thanks,
Rebecca G. McQuitty
Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcq@wco.com (Rebecca McQuitty)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.israel,soc.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc
Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
Expires: !!! 00:00:00 GMT
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
before voting.
Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, !!!.
A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
post.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
inserts.
Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
(do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.vote.yes
[ NO ] example.vote.no
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
prevent your vote from being counted.
When you're finished, mail the ballot to <!!! address !!!>.
Replying to this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If
you ordinarily use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid
address to vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
correctly.
<!!! ballot !!!>
DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.religion.bahai
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
lists:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
a.bsu.religion
alt.religion
alt.religion.islam
news.admin.censorship
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
talk.religion.buddhism
talk.religion.newage
uk.religion.interfaith
uk.religion.misc
uk.religion.other-faiths
The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 8:52 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: address for Ron House?
Hi,
My mail to Ron House at <house@usq.edu.au.uk> has bounced. Could
you please give me a valid address for him?
Thanks,
Rebecca G. McQuitty
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 7:03 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Re: address for Ron House?
You have "UK" somehow at the end. He lives in Australia.
You may have confused his address with Chris Manvell in
the UK unless I mistakenly got it on to the RFD!
house@usq.edu.au
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 7:52 PM
Subject: address for Ron House?
>Hi,
>
>My mail to Ron House at <house@usq.edu.au.uk> has bounced. Could
>you please give me a valid address for him?
>
>Thanks,
>Rebecca G. McQuitty
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 7:20 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Re: DRAFT CFV: talk.religion.bahai
My same UK error is in Ron House's address. Sorry.
Everything else looks all right. Thanks. And thanks for
taking this one on. I hope the interest poll proceeds
without trouble of any kind....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
To: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>;
FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>; house@usq.edu.au.uk
<house@usq.edu.au.uk>
Cc: cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 12:09 AM
Subject: DRAFT CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>Please confirm that the information about the proposed group is correct,
>or let me know of any errors you find.
>
>Some parts of the CFV cannot be filled in until just before posting;
>they are marked with the string "!!!". Don't worry about these.
>
>Thanks,
>Rebecca G. McQuitty
>Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: mcq@wco.com (Rebecca McQuitty)
>Newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.israel,so
c.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc
>Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>Followup-To: poster
>Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
>Expires: !!! 00:00:00 GMT
>
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>
>Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
>talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
>voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
>before voting.
>
>Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
>it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
>it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
>the votetaker will be invalid.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, !!!.
>
>A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
>questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
>proposed group to the proponents.
>
>Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
>Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
>Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
Should be:
>Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
>exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
>meet that need.
>
>Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
>March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
>talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>
>Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
>been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
>points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
>for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
>
>Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
>conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
>from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
>individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
>
>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
>talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
>periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
>hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
>justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
>on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
>easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
>rates of posting by interested people.
>
>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
>than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
>will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
>well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
>especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
>unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
>hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
>as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
>alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>
>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>discussion.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
>in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>
>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.
>
>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
>ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
>any postings of a purely commercial nature.
>
>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
>encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
>Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
>soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
>
>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
>
>The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
>reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
>parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
>direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
>Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
>this CFV is considered vote fraud.
>
>At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
>votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
>Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
>post.
>
>Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
>forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
>forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
>addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
>
>Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
>
>HOW TO VOTE:
>
>Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
>"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
>*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
>of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
>inserts.
>
>Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
>vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
>ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
>(do not vote here):
>
> [ YES ] example.vote.yes
> [ NO ] example.vote.no
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
>Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
>Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
>prevent your vote from being counted.
>
>When you're finished, mail the ballot to <!!! address !!!>.
>Replying to this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If
>you ordinarily use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid
>address to vote.
>
>If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
>days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
>for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
>correctly.
>
><!!! ballot !!!>
>
>DISTRIBUTION
>
>This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> alt.religion.bahai
> soc.culture.israel
> soc.religion.bahai
> soc.rights.human
> talk.religion.misc
>
>The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
>lists:
>
> Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
> Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
> Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
> Mailing list name: h-bahai
> Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
> Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
>
> Mailing list name: Talisman
> Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
> Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
>
>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
>
> a.bsu.religion
> alt.religion
> alt.religion.islam
> news.admin.censorship
> soc.religion.eastern
> soc.religion.gnosis
> soc.religion.hindu
> soc.religion.paganism
> soc.religion.quaker
> soc.religion.sikhism
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ
> soc.religion.vaishnava
> talk.religion.buddhism
> talk.religion.newage
> uk.religion.interfaith
> uk.religion.misc
> uk.religion.other-faiths
>
>The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
>
>--
>Rebecca Graham McQuitty
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 7:24 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai vote
I think I'm ready for it.... Let's go! Sorry I've been away for a few days
and am just now getting this and your other messages. I appreciate
all of the advice below too....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
To: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>;
FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>; house@usq.edu.au.uk
<house@usq.edu.au.uk>
Cc: cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 12:06 AM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai vote
>I'm writing to let you know that I will be handling the vote for the
>proposed group talk.religion.bahai. There are a few things I need to
>tell you before the vote starts:
>
> * Do not distribute the CFV; don't mail it, post it, or put it on
> the web. I'll be happy to mail it to anyone who wants it. Even
> more importantly, do *not* distribute edited or partial copies of
> the CFV or voting instructions; this will result in invalidation
> of your ballot and all the ballots resulting from your
> distribution, or in the cancellation of the entire vote.
>
> * Under no circumstances can I make information on the progress of
> the vote available before the RESULT post appears. If this
> information were to get out, it would be grounds for cancelling
> the vote.
>
> * Since I can't comment on the substance of the proposal, I'll refer
> any voters with questions or comments about it to you. I will be
> answering any questions people have about voting procedures; feel
> free to refer these questions to me.
>
> * As much as possible, please refrain from campaigning during the
> voting period and let real levels of interest drive voters. Be
> aware that proponent campaigning can cause a voter backlash and
> produce the opposite result of that intended. If you do campaign,
> make sure to do it properly: Place *pointers* to the CFV in
> groups where you can be reasonably sure people will be interested
> in the topic.
>
>My next message to you will contain a draft CFV. Please check it
>carefully and let me know if you see any errors you'd like me to fix.
>I need for you to confirm that the information about the proposal is
>correct before I can submit the CFV for publication.
>
>Let me know if you have any questions; I'll be happy to pass on any
>information I have about the CFV process.
>
>Rebecca G. McQuitty
>Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 7:27 AM
To: pierceed@csus.edu
Subject: Re: Vote for a TRUE Baha'i / Re: talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Pierce <PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 24, 1998 9:07 PM
Subject: Vote for a TRUE Baha'i / Re: talk.religion.bahai
On 24 Jan 98 at 1:15, Burl Barer wrote:
> Date sent: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:15:42 -0800
> To: "FG" <FG@hotmail.com>,
> "talisman" <talisman@umich.edu>
> From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
> Fred said:
> >The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
> >created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
> >1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
> >World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
> >investigations....etc.
For the record, I did not write the above but quoted it....
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religon.bahia disclaimer
>To me, s.r.b is obviously *not* an official or quasi-official organ of the
>Baha'i administration.
The official Bahai Computer and Communication Association (BCCA) lists
soc.religion.bahai as one of its "services" at
https://www.bcca.org/services/srb/
Other sources that seem to imply the same may be found at
https://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Faiths_and_Practices/Bah__
__Faith/
>
>T. Spade
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 8:31 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
I've returned the rough draft for the CFV and surmise it probably
will be posted any time now. It might be beneficial to consult on
the advice that the votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, has sent all the
proponents. It offers some worthwhile advice and guidance to
those new and old to the interest polling process.
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>
------begin quoted material:
I'm writing to let you know that I will be handling the vote for the
proposed group talk.religion.bahai. There are a few things I need to
tell you before the vote starts:
* Do not distribute the CFV; don't mail it, post it, or put it on
the web. I'll be happy to mail it to anyone who wants it. Even
more importantly, do *not* distribute edited or partial copies of
the CFV or voting instructions; this will result in invalidation
of your ballot and all the ballots resulting from your
distribution, or in the cancellation of the entire vote.
* Under no circumstances can I make information on the progress of
the vote available before the RESULT post appears. If this
information were to get out, it would be grounds for cancelling
the vote.
* Since I can't comment on the substance of the proposal, I'll refer
any voters with questions or comments about it to you. I will be
answering any questions people have about voting procedures; feel
free to refer these questions to me.
* As much as possible, please refrain from campaigning during the
voting period and let real levels of interest drive voters. Be
aware that proponent campaigning can cause a voter backlash and
produce the opposite result of that intended. If you do campaign,
make sure to do it properly: Place *pointers* to the CFV in
groups where you can be reasonably sure people will be interested
in the topic.
My next message to you will contain a draft CFV. Please check it
carefully and let me know if you see any errors you'd like me to fix.
I need for you to confirm that the information about the proposal is
correct before I can submit the CFV for publication.
Let me know if you have any questions; I'll be happy to pass on any
information I have about the CFV process.
Rebecca G. McQuitty
Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 8:31 AM
Subject: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
I've returned the rough draft for the CFV and surmise it probably
will be posted any time now. It might be beneficial to consult on
the advice that the votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, has sent all the
proponents. It offers some worthwhile advice and guidance to
those new and old to the interest polling process.
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>
------begin quoted material:
I'm writing to let you know that I will be handling the vote for the
proposed group talk.religion.bahai. There are a few things I need to
tell you before the vote starts:
* Do not distribute the CFV; don't mail it, post it, or put it on
the web. I'll be happy to mail it to anyone who wants it. Even
more importantly, do *not* distribute edited or partial copies of
the CFV or voting instructions; this will result in invalidation
of your ballot and all the ballots resulting from your
distribution, or in the cancellation of the entire vote.
* Under no circumstances can I make information on the progress of
the vote available before the RESULT post appears. If this
information were to get out, it would be grounds for cancelling
the vote.
* Since I can't comment on the substance of the proposal, I'll refer
any voters with questions or comments about it to you. I will be
answering any questions people have about voting procedures; feel
free to refer these questions to me.
* As much as possible, please refrain from campaigning during the
voting period and let real levels of interest drive voters. Be
aware that proponent campaigning can cause a voter backlash and
produce the opposite result of that intended. If you do campaign,
make sure to do it properly: Place *pointers* to the CFV in
groups where you can be reasonably sure people will be interested
in the topic.
My next message to you will contain a draft CFV. Please check it
carefully and let me know if you see any errors you'd like me to fix.
I need for you to confirm that the information about the proposal is
correct before I can submit the CFV for publication.
Let me know if you have any questions; I'll be happy to pass on any
information I have about the CFV process.
Rebecca G. McQuitty
Member, Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 8:43 AM
Subject: Christian/Bahai apologetics
Some might find the Christian/Bahai website interesting.
--
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>
--------forwarded message:
Dear Baha'i brothers and sisters,
I wanted to invite you to the Fireside Letters website which focuses on
controversial Christian/Baha'i issues from a Christian perspective. The
redesigned site. is topical and condensed. Although some of the text
files are perhaps larger than average, it is much reduced now to
essentials that follow Christian/Baha'i apologetic concepts on both
sides of through some point/counterpoint discussion that goes beyond the
typical initial "difference of outlook" on given issues and really tries
to follow issues through to a more substantial concluding point.
Topics include Comparing World religions, Man's nature, Baha'u'llah's
station, Christ's station, Science and religion, Baha'is and the "New
Age", Aa look at four Baha'i analogies, Bible "errors", The
Ressurrection and Pentecost, and Sin, Satan and Relative truth.
I hope you will find the site more accesible, and interesting, even if
from the point of view of "agreeing to disagree". Certainly one can tell
from the topic headings that critical issues between Christian and
Baha'i are considered at length. Thus it should be at least visited and
considered seriously along the path of "independent investigation".
Please refer others to the site and invite them as well to offer
critical feedback which will be taken in a spirit of peace and the quest
for truth.
Feedback welcomed,
God bless,
Dale:)
The Fireside Letters,
https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.htm
l
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 9:10 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: talk.religion.bahai discussed on soc.religion.bahai
During the last week, soc.religion.bahai has finally permitted mention
of talk.religion.bahai for the first time in about 4 or 5 months....
Any ideas why?
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 9:10 AM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai discussed on soc.religion.bahai
During the last week, soc.religion.bahai has finally permitted mention
of talk.religion.bahai for the first time in about 4 or 5 months....
Any ideas why?
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: No sense of irony or shame....
Soc.religion.bahai has recently allowed this heading and message of mine
to be reposted on it along with a number of messages responding to it or
criticizing it or related issues....
FG wrote in message <6a4r5a$831@news1.zippo.com>...
>In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
>
>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>
>
>--------quoted message begins:
>
>A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT KHATAMI TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE
>
>January 13, 1998
>
>His Excellency President Mohammad Khatami
>Islamic Republic of Iran
>Tehran, Iran
>
>Your Excellency,
>
>We, the American Baha'is, residing in more than seven thousand cities and
>towns across the United States and representing all races, cultures and
>ethnic origins in our nation, have listened with great interest to your
>words addressed to the American people, of which we are an organic part.
>
>Your message prompts us to address you directly, because of your expressed
>dedication to the principles of freedom, justice and the rule of law -
>principles which, as you noted, are cherished by the American people.
>
>We who enjoy such freedoms hope that our co-religionists in Iran, who have
>been deprived of them, will be granted their full rights as law-abiding
>citizens of your nation.
>
>We are particularly encouraged by your assertion "that religion and liberty
>are consistent and compatible." As you said, "Human experience has taught
>us that prosperous life should hinge on three pillars: religiosity,
>liberty and justice." These, you concluded, "are the assets and
>aspirations of the Islamic Revolution as it enters the twenty-first
>century."
>
> Are the Baha'is of Iran - your nation's largest religious
> minority - included in these aspirations?
>
>Your explicitly stated determination to fulfill the provisions of the
>Iranian Constitution and to establish the rule of law gives us hope that
>the freedom of the Baha'i community in Iran openly to practice its religion
>will be guaranteed.
>
>May we not expect, in the light of your commitment to human dignity and
>freedom, that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution
>(A/RES/52/142), which calls for the emancipation of the Baha'i community of
>Iran, will now be implemented?
>
>Respectfully yours,
>
>THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>Robert Calvin Henderson
>Secretary
>
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
>1320 NINETEENTH ST., N.W., SUITE 701 . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 .
202.833.8990
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 9:32 AM
To: Bruce D Limber
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a letter)
Please do not email me directly. Post your opinions on news.groups
or other relevant news groups.
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
letter)
>
>>In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
>
>A fact is not hypocrisy. It is a fact.
>
>It's truly a pity that you still haven't learned the well-known
>concept that if you have nothing good to say, you should
>SAY NOTHING.
>
>It's really very simple.
>
>I refer you to the "I will not dwell on the unpleasant things
>of life" prayer for details.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
This all strikes me as a good summation before the interest poll
gets under way here shortly....
Ron House wrote in message <34CD6CED.4ED50ED9@usq.edu.au>...
>The rules of this forum are that good citizenship,
>but not the letter of the law, requires that a no
>vote only be cast for technical reasons.
>
>If you want me to:
>
>(A) convince you to not vote no:
>
>then I respond that Baha'is are expected to be good
>'citizens', and therefore, as neither you nor anyone
>else has suggested any plausible technical arguments,
>a no vote just isn't acceptable for a 'good' Baha'i.
>
>But if you want me to:
>
>(B) convince you to vote yes:
>
>then I simply point out to you that there are many people
>in the world whose chief attraction to the Baha'i
>faith is its adherence to Baha'u'llah's principle
>of _INDEPENDENT_ search for truth, and that many
>of these people simply won't consider any kind of
>moderated forum to be free enough for their search
>purposes. Quite a few people have independently
>volunteered such a view during this discussion, and
>I would suggest to you that not much purpose is
>served by denying the fact. What you do with it
>is up to you.
>
>If I convince you of (A) but not of (B), then abstain.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
FYI
More than 5,512 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai
as of this morning since April 1, 1997....
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 6:45 PM
To: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu; pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
You might find it interesting to know that recently you've been
the subject of discussion on soc.religion.bahai, news.groups, and
alt.religion.bahai....
--
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>
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 11:29 PM
To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
*The Baha'i Studies List*
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
before voting.
Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
post.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
inserts.
Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
(do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.vote.yes
[ NO ] example.vote.no
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
prevent your vote from being counted.
When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
correctly.
-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0005>
Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
Your name -->
[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
lists:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
a.bsu.religion
alt.religion
alt.religion.islam
news.admin.censorship
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
talk.religion.buddhism
talk.religion.newage
uk.religion.interfaith
uk.religion.misc
uk.religion.other-faiths
The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
-
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
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 11:32 PM
To: talisman@umich.edu
Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
before voting.
Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
post.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
inserts.
Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
(do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.vote.yes
[ NO ] example.vote.no
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
prevent your vote from being counted.
When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
correctly.
-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0009>
Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
Your name -->
[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
lists:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
a.bsu.religion
alt.religion
alt.religion.islam
news.admin.censorship
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
talk.religion.buddhism
talk.religion.newage
uk.religion.interfaith
uk.religion.misc
uk.religion.other-faiths
The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 6:57 AM
To: Bruce D Limber
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a letter)
As far as I'm concerned, you represent, like so many Bahais, the epitome of
your accusations against me.... I will be deleting anything else from you in
my mailbox without reading it....
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>
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
letter)
>
>>Please do not email me directly.
>
>When you cease trying to engender division and negativity, I
>will cease replying.
>
>Until then, I reserve the right to object to bigotry and hate-
>mongering.
>
>And I stand by the statements in my previous post.
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at https://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
Rebecca McQuitty wrote in message <6amm2n$okp$1@news.ncal.verio.com>...
><x@x.x> wrote:
>
>[ about pointers to the CFV ]
>
>> May we assume that the votetaker will post these, or should the
>> proponents do so?
>
>Proponents are responsible for posting the pointers listed in the CFV;
>the optional step of checking them out with the votetaker before posting
>can help prevent problems.
I'll post them as soon as I hear back from you okaying a rough draft
I'll send you in a minute.
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:41 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Rough draft for pointer: talk.religion.bahai
Rebecca, is this all right for a pointer?
------
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to all
of the newsgroups and listservs specified in the RFD. You may now
vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email:
mcq@wco.com
--
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>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:59 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Fw: CFV talk.religion.bahai posted
FYI
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted.
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
Newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.israel,so
c.rights.human,talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 9:25 PM
Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>
>Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
>talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
>voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
>before voting.
>
>Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
>it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
>it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
>the votetaker will be invalid.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
>
>A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
>questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
>proposed group to the proponents.
>
>Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
>Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
>Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
>exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
>meet that need.
>
>Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
>March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
>talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>
>Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
>been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
>points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
>for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
>
>Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
>conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
>from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
>individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
>
>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
>talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
>periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
>hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
>justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
>on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
>easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
>rates of posting by interested people.
>
>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
>than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
>will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
>well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
>especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
>unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
>hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
>as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
>alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>
>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>discussion.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
>in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>
>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.
>
>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
>ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
>any postings of a purely commercial nature.
>
>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
>encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
>Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
>soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
>
>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
>
>The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
>reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
>parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
>direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
>Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
>this CFV is considered vote fraud.
>
>At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
>votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
>Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
>post.
>
>Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
>forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
>forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
>addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
>
>Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
>
>HOW TO VOTE:
>
>Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
>"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
>*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
>of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
>inserts.
>
>Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
>vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
>ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
>(do not vote here):
>
> [ YES ] example.vote.yes
> [ NO ] example.vote.no
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
>Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
>Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
>prevent your vote from being counted.
>
>When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
>this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
>use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
>
>If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
>days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
>for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
>correctly.
>
>-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
>Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
>by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0001>
>
>Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
>Your name -->
>[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ ] talk.religion.bahai
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>DISTRIBUTION
>
>This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> alt.religion.bahai
> soc.culture.israel
> soc.rights.human
> talk.religion.misc
> soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
>
>The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
>lists:
>
> Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
> Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
> Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
> Mailing list name: h-bahai
> Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
> Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
>
> Mailing list name: Talisman
> Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
> Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
>
>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
>
> a.bsu.religion
> alt.religion
> alt.religion.islam
> news.admin.censorship
> soc.religion.eastern
> soc.religion.gnosis
> soc.religion.hindu
> soc.religion.paganism
> soc.religion.quaker
> soc.religion.sikhism
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ
> soc.religion.vaishnava
> talk.religion.buddhism
> talk.religion.newage
> uk.religion.interfaith
> uk.religion.misc
> uk.religion.other-faiths
>
>The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
>
>--
>Rebecca Graham McQuitty
----------
From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 1:07 PM
To: FG
Cc: Ron House
Subject: Re: Fw: CFV talk.religion.bahai posted
In message <01bd2be4$3b9b1900$762ab3c7@glaysher.Library>, FG <FG@hotmail.com> writes
>FG
>UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
>
>The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>
>The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted.
Saw it and voted!
BTW, we are not the only people being hammered by Rick Schaut. I see he
is in the fray elsewhere on variuous subjects!
All the best,
Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317
Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai who really must get a new keyboard!
--
NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove "NO_UCE" from address before e-mailing.
Go to <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm> to read the REVISED RFD
for talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups.
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 3:33 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Rough draft for pointer: talk.religion.bahai
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, rederick Glaysher wrote:
> Rebecca, is this all right for a pointer?
I'd suggest listing the newsgroups where the CFV is posted instead of
referring back to the RFD. Other than that, it's fine.
Cheers,
Rebecca G. McQuitty
> of the newsgroups and listservs specified in the RFD. You may now
> vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
>
> The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
> Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email:
>
> mcq@wco.com
----------
From: George Demas[SMTP:gjdemas@ap.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 8:45 PM
To: FG
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Get a life.
Nobody is obligated to be a Baha'i. If you want to be one, you must live by
the rules set down by God.
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Thanks, Emma. As background information, I'll
>quote a few things that seem relevant to the discussion
>for talk.religion.bahai and might help set it in a fuller
>historical context here on news.groups....
>
>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>
>
>------------------------------------
>Quoted material begins from https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>
>
>Freedom of Expression within the Baha'i Faith
>
>Although Baha'is have been very active in the promotion of freedom of
>expression around the world, there are significant restrictions on
>freedoms of individual members. These are enforced through
>shunning or expelling non-conforming adherents. Some examples are:
>
>[clip]
>
>The Baha'i authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material
>written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be
>scanned by a review committee of the Baha'i National Spiritual
>Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was
>a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.
>
>The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
>created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
>1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
>World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
>investigations.
>One sensitive topic debated on "Talisman" was the exclusion of women
>from the Universal House of Justice which some subscribers felt was i
>ncompatible with the importance given to the equality of the sexes
>within the Baha'i Faith. Some postings argued that the body be opened
>up to women; they based their beliefs on their interpretation of
>Baha'u'llah's writings. "Talisman" was closed on 1996-MAY. Juan Cole,
>now an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
>e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
>
>[clip]
>
>Michael McKenny, a fantasy writer from Canada was expelled because
>of his views expressed in Emails.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>----
>Internet References and Mailing Lists
>
>Jonah Winters' Baha'i Academics Resource Area is at:
>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/
>
>[clip]
>
>Material on freedom of expression within the Baha'i Faith is available at:
>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html and at
>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/chafe.html
>
>An official response from the US National Spiritual Assembly to the latter
>item is available at: https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/attacks.html
>
>Paul Johnson authored an article on the Talisman discussion group in
>1997-Winter edition of Gnosis Magazine.
>
>--------------
>Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>
>>Emma
>>
>>Possible interesting website written from a somewhat neutral point of
>>view
>>
>>https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>>
>>ps. Some of the Baha'i sites are extremely difficult to navigate with
>>lynx (or for that matter monochrome netscape) and don't seem to be
>>coded right. https://www.bahai.org/ is a case in point.
>>--
>>\----
>>|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
>>|_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
>
>
----------
From: James[SMTP:bookstor@pandore.qc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 4:45 AM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: Are you or are you not?
Hello Frederick:
Well, are you or are you not a Baha'i?
James
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 8:32 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
I've received several pieces of abusive and vilifying hate mail
from Bahais during the last three or four days. Although I've asked
one person not to email me at least twice in the past, he continues
to insist on his "right" to harass me. I'd appreciate if other Bahais
would generally appeal to such persons either to post what they
think in public view or not to contact me in any way....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted.
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 8:32 AM
Subject: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
I've received several pieces of abusive and vilifying hate mail
from Bahais during the last three or four days. Although I've asked
one person not to email me at least twice in the past, he continues
to insist on his "right" to harass me. I'd appreciate if other Bahais
would generally appeal to such persons either to post what they
think in public view or not to contact me in any way....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted.
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 9:40 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
The pointers to the CFV have now been posted....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
The pointers to the CFV have now been posted....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 9:52 AM
To: Juan R. I. Cole
Subject: Fw: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Has someone decided not to post the CFV to h-bahai? I haven't seen
it yet. It was posted elsewhere two days ago....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 10:30 PM
Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>*The Baha'i Studies List*
>
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>
>Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
>talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
>voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
>before voting.
>
>Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
>it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
>it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
>the votetaker will be invalid.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
>
>A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
>questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
>proposed group to the proponents.
>
>Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
>Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
>Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
>exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
>meet that need.
>
>Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
>March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
>talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
>
>Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
>been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
>points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
>for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
>
>Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
>conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
>from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
>individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
>
>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
>talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
>periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
>hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
>justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
>on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
>easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
>rates of posting by interested people.
>
>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
>than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
>will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
>well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
>especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
>unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
>hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
>as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
>alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>
>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>discussion.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
>in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>
>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.
>
>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
>ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
>any postings of a purely commercial nature.
>
>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
>encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
>Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
>soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
>
>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
>
>The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
>reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
>parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
>direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
>Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
>this CFV is considered vote fraud.
>
>At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
>votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
>Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
>post.
>
>Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
>forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
>forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
>addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
>
>Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
>
>HOW TO VOTE:
>
>Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
>"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
>*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
>of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
>inserts.
>
>Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
>vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
>ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
>(do not vote here):
>
> [ YES ] example.vote.yes
> [ NO ] example.vote.no
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
>Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
>Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
>prevent your vote from being counted.
>
>When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
>this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
>use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
>
>If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
>days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
>for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
>correctly.
>
>-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
>Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
>by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0005>
>
>Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
>Your name -->
>[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ ] talk.religion.bahai
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>DISTRIBUTION
>
>This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> alt.religion.bahai
> soc.culture.israel
> soc.rights.human
> talk.religion.misc
> soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
>
>The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
>lists:
>
> Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
> Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
> Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
> Mailing list name: h-bahai
> Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
> Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
>
> Mailing list name: Talisman
> Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
> Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
>
>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
>
> a.bsu.religion
> alt.religion
> alt.religion.islam
> news.admin.censorship
> soc.religion.eastern
> soc.religion.gnosis
> soc.religion.hindu
> soc.religion.paganism
> soc.religion.quaker
> soc.religion.sikhism
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ
> soc.religion.vaishnava
> talk.religion.buddhism
> talk.religion.newage
> uk.religion.interfaith
> uk.religion.misc
> uk.religion.other-faiths
>
>The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
>
>--
>Rebecca Graham McQuitty
>-
>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
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 5:26 PM
To: Juan R. I. Cole
Subject: Re: Fw: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Ah, yes, now I do recall....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: Emma Pease[SMTP:emma@csli.Stanford.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 5:38 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
[email only]
In <6apsrg$njd@news1.newsguy.com> "FG" <FG@hotmail.com> writes:
>I've received several pieces of abusive and vilifying hate mail
>from Bahais during the last three or four days. Although I've asked
>one person not to email me at least twice in the past, he continues
>to insist on his "right" to harass me. I'd appreciate if other Bahais
>would generally appeal to such persons either to post what they
>think in public view or not to contact me in any way....
I would suggest writing the harasser a note asking him to cease
sending you any email and that any communications he wishes to have
with you should be in the newsgroup. In the same message state that
you don't intend to ever send him another email (and hold by that no
matter what the provocation [ideally by setting up a filter that
bounces any mail sent from him back to him]). CC this message to his
postmaster and to your postmaster (this is important, it means someone
with authority to force him to cease has been made aware of the
problem; your postmaster may also be able to help with filters and now
knows that a problem is going on [especially if, as sometimes happens,
he accuses you of of being the harasser]). If he evades the filter,
send an example message to his postmaster and note that you have asked
him to cease sending you email and that the postmaster should have
your original 'please cease' message in his files.
Note that it is important that you cease sending any email to him
after the formal cease message. If you send him even one email after
that message, it will seriously undermine any support you will get
from his ISP's postmaster and your ISP's postmaster.
Emma
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pointer to CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34d3dd3a.103392177@news.microserve.net>...
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:54:54 -0500, in news.admin.censorship, "Frederick
>Glaysher" <FG@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to all
>>of the newsgroups and listservs specified in the CFV:
>
>[ deletia ]
>
>You posted this in news.admin.censorship?
Yes.
>
>Whatever for, Fred?
I and other people have stated that we have been censored on
soc.religion.bahai repeatedly and to such an extent that it clearly
demonstrates a pattern of concern that at least partially has
played a role in the desire for an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith. Since news.admin.censorship focusses on
censorship, I have posted there in the past to inform people who
care about the issue of what at least I and some other people
believe has or is taking place on Usenet in regard to our attempts
to form talk.religion.bahai.
>
>--
>Dave Ratcliffe
>dave@frackit.com
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <https://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
Chris Manvell wrote:
>BTW, Fred, the web address you are posting is wrong and should be:
><https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>. The page has been updated
>with a pointer to the CFV.
Oops! I knew that but stared right at it without seeing it.....
Thanks.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
Robert A. Little wrote in message <6argk5$1ck$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>'Abdul-Baha' is quoted in the Stars of the West as saying (approximately)
>that the enemies outside of the Faith can do no harm, but those within the
>Faith, those who call themselves the "friends" and who break the laws of
>love and of unity can do great harm in this day (1919).
What's this supposed to mean?
>Realizing that this is an unmoderated group, I appeal to Baha'is to observe
>the tenets of this divinely ordained Faith, and to show restraint in the
>face of provocation.
Now let me get your reason right.... An unmoderated group equals
provocation?
>Ask yourselves: what would 'Abdul-Baha' do?
I assume you're suggesting he wouldn't send hate mail or vote to
suppress the human rights of others....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
Roger Reini wrote in message <34D0A510.2411@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>FG wrote:
>
>If this is true, then it is most unfortunate. It is even more so if it
>is coming from followers of Baha'u'llah.
Although someone has suggested I post them to talisman and
news.groups, and it is my inclination to reveal such things to
the light of day, I would then be blamed and attacked for doing so....
>If anyone has a disagreement with an individual, they should work it out
>in a calm and collected manner. They should not resort to harassment,
>making threats, or anything that is undignified. Such behavior is not
>worthy of anyone, especially those who consider themselves Baha'i.
>
>Fred: if you've explicitly told someone to stop e-mailing you, yet they
>persist in doing so, you have grounds for complaining to the other
>person's ISP.
Someone else has suggested I contact his and my ISP. A lot of work.
I've decided to put his address in a hotmail filter for deletion and to
send you, Mr. Reini, copies of his and a few other messages I've
recently received. May I ask you to kindly contact them? You have a
long historical memory.... Might find them interesting.... And I trust
you to do and say discreetly the right thing.... You or someone else
might post something to bahai-discuss and soc.religion.bahai, if
they'll let you.... I've often seen him posting to them in the past....
>IMHO, the person who is doing this should respect Fred's wishes and
>refrain from sending him any more e-mail.
>
>Let us not allow incidents such as this to taint the voting now taking
>place for talk.religion.bahai.
This is my wish too....
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
>https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:09 AM
To: Roger Reini
Subject: hate mail
Roger,
I hope you don't mind my asking you to take care of these.... I just think
you can handle them fairly and the one individual at least will probably
listen to you....
#1:
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
letter)
>Please do not email me directly. Post your opinions on news.groups
>or other relevant news groups.
>
>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>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
>To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
>Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 8:53 AM
>Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
>letter)
>
>
>>
>>>In my opinion, complete and unmitigated hypocrisy....
>>
>>A fact is not hypocrisy. It is a fact.
>>
>>It's truly a pity that you still haven't learned the well-known
>>concept that if you have nothing good to say, you should
>>SAY NOTHING.
>>
>>It's really very simple.
>>
>>I refer you to the "I will not dwell on the unpleasant things
>>of life" prayer for details.
>>
>
#2:
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
letter)
>As far as I'm concerned, you represent, like so many Bahais, the epitome of
>your accusations against me.... I will be deleting anything else from you
in
>my mailbox without reading it....
>
>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>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce D Limber <bruce.limber@juno.com>
>To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
>Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 7:30 PM
>Subject: Re: U.S. Baha'is to Iran's Pres. Khatami re Baha'is in Iran (a
>letter)
>
>
>>
>>>Please do not email me directly.
>>
>>When you cease trying to engender division and negativity, I
>>will cease replying.
>>
>>Until then, I reserve the right to object to bigotry and hate-
>>mongering.
>>
>>And I stand by the statements in my previous post.
>>
>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at https://www.juno.com
>>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>>
>>
>
#3
-----Original Message-----
From: George Demas <gjdemas@ap.net>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Get a life.
>
>Nobody is obligated to be a Baha'i. If you want to be one, you must live
by
>the rules set down by God.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
>Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 4:28 AM
>Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>
>
>>Thanks, Emma. As background information, I'll
>>quote a few things that seem relevant to the discussion
>>for talk.religion.bahai and might help set it in a fuller
>>historical context here on news.groups....
>>
>>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>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>Quoted material begins from https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>>
>>
>>Freedom of Expression within the Baha'i Faith
>>
>>Although Baha'is have been very active in the promotion of freedom of
>>expression around the world, there are significant restrictions on
>>freedoms of individual members. These are enforced through
>>shunning or expelling non-conforming adherents. Some examples are:
>>
>>[clip]
>>
>>The Baha'i authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material
>>written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be
>>scanned by a review committee of the Baha'i National Spiritual
>>Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was
>>a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.
>>
>>The authorities closed down the "Talisman" mailing list. This was
>>created by a professor at Indiana University, John Walbridge, in
>>1994-OCT. The list had 175 subscribers. In early 1996, the Baha'i
>>World Center in Haifa, Israel ordered the first of a series of
>>investigations.
>>One sensitive topic debated on "Talisman" was the exclusion of women
>>from the Universal House of Justice which some subscribers felt was i
>>ncompatible with the importance given to the equality of the sexes
>>within the Baha'i Faith. Some postings argued that the body be opened
>>up to women; they based their beliefs on their interpretation of
>>Baha'u'llah's writings. "Talisman" was closed on 1996-MAY. Juan Cole,
>>now an ex-Baha'i, opened a new Talisman list the following month. Its
>>e-mail address is talisman@umich.edu.
>>
>>[clip]
>>
>>Michael McKenny, a fantasy writer from Canada was expelled because
>>of his views expressed in Emails.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-
>>----
>>Internet References and Mailing Lists
>>
>>Jonah Winters' Baha'i Academics Resource Area is at:
>>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/
>>
>>[clip]
>>
>>Material on freedom of expression within the Baha'i Faith is available at:
>>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html and at
>>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/newspapers/chafe.html
>>
>>An official response from the US National Spiritual Assembly to the latter
>>item is available at: https://www.interlog.com/~winters/uhj/attacks.html
>>
>>Paul Johnson authored an article on the Talisman discussion group in
>>1997-Winter edition of Gnosis Magazine.
>>
>>--------------
>>Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Emma
>>>
>>>Possible interesting website written from a somewhat neutral point of
>>>view
>>>
>>>https://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
>>>
>>>ps. Some of the Baha'i sites are extremely difficult to navigate with
>>>lynx (or for that matter monochrome netscape) and don't seem to be
>>>coded right. https://www.bahai.org/ is a case in point.
>>>--
>>>\----
>>>|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
>>>|_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
>>
>>
>
#4
-----Original Message-----
From: James <bookstor@pandore.qc.ca>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 3:44 AM
Subject: Are you or are you not?
>Hello Frederick:
>
>Well, are you or are you not a Baha'i?
>
>
>James
>
>
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:13 AM
To: Emma Pease
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
Thanks, Emma.
I've put the person's email address in a hotmail filter for deletion
and have asked another Bahai to discreetly contact him. I'm
hoping he'll listen to him and this won't blow up into a big hullabaloo
or excuse for voting NO....
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:23 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
-----Original Message-----
From: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON <talishman@usa.net>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Cc: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
>I recommend that Fred notify Baha'i institutions and ABM's with the
specific names and forward the hate mail to Baha'i instituions and ask for
them to intervene on his behalf.
I've forwarded copies to Mr. Roger Reini and asked him to contact the
people involved and handle them discreetly.... I've also put their email
addresses in hotmail filters for deletion.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <34d10c2f.0@vlinsvr>...
>So-- it might best be said that I was in the mid-90s an ex-Baha'i
>who had pretty much ignored Baha'i matters until a book on
>something else led me back to the subject of Baha'i and into
>association with Baha'i scholars who were helpful and generous to
>me. Talisman was a wonderful resource for my book, which was
>dedicated to it along with some other newsgroups that helped.
>The shock of how those scholars were treated by their fellow
>Baha'is and ultimately the leaders of the Faith led me to write
>about it at the time. But at present I'm not interested enough
>in the Faith to be considered a critic of it at all.
>
>Second-- Mr. Manvell simply throws out the insulting accusation
>of my using "half truths to attack the Faith" without citing a
>single such misrepresentation out of the scores of purely factual
>statements in the article. At the time it appeared, some people
>on Talisman II dismissed it as erroneous, biased, etc.-- but
>others challenged them to find a single misrepresentation of
>facts therein, and not one was ever pointed out. My
>"accusations" are based entirely on the "experience of the Faith"
>of those I interviewed, and if Mr. Manvell's experience was
>different it was undoubtedly because he was not in the same
>position they were, of trying to reconcile their freedom and
>objectivity as scholars with the restrictions on discourse
>imposed by their coreligionists.
>
>Third-- it was stated that there was "no substantive evidence
>that anyone tried to suppress the free exchange of information."
>This is preposterous, as the archives of Talisman I contain
>hundreds of examples of conservative Baha'is trying to shout down
>those of a more liberal view, insisting that their positions and
>commentary were simply unacceptable. Accusations of heresy were
>a constant on the list. Correspondence by such
>persons with the institutions is what led to the various
>sanctions and character assassinations that followed.
For those who wish to read and decide for themselves, talisman
archives are available at:
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
>
>Fourth-- it is entirely disingenuous for people who have many
>years of their lives and their whole identities tied up in a
>religion to dismiss *someone else* for not being a "disinterested
>outside observer." I'm much closer to being one than any of my
>Baha'i critics are; are they willing to say that anything a true
>believer Baha'i writes about the faith can be dismissed since
>*they* are not "disinterested outside observers?" Come now.
>In fact, Ira Rifkin of Religion News Service is *precisely* a
>disinterested outside observer, yet his article was attacked much
>more vigorously by Baha'is than mine has been. No matter how
>biased I might be, the facts in the piece, which consists
>overwhelmingly of facts, can be confirmed by others who don't
>share my attitudes.
I'm unfamiliar with the article. Is it online somewhere or can you
give a full citation with a date for it?
>Fifth-- "the story is much more complex than it appears in the
>article." Well, of course. Reducing thousands of pages of
>Internet conversation over 18 months to a single page is
>certainly not going to convey the full complexity of the
>situation, but was the best I could do in the circumstances.
>
>Now, then: I have no more interest in this subject and ask that
>my name be left out of further discussions. Would never have
>known I was being discussed if someone hadn't emailed me about
>this.
Dare I say it was another Bahai and proponent who doesn't
necessarily entirely disagree with your article? Thank you
for stating your views and sharing a little about your Bahai past....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: Emma Pease[SMTP:emma@csli.Stanford.EDU]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 12:50 PM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
> I've put the person's email address in a hotmail filter for deletion
> and have asked another Bahai to discreetly contact him. I'm
> hoping he'll listen to him and this won't blow up into a big hullabaloo
> or excuse for voting NO....
Frederick,
Just keep calm and give the political no voters no excuse for claiming
that your behaviour caused all the negative votes. Let the votetaker
or the other proponents deal with any misconduct.
Emma
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 8:36 AM
To: Roger Reini
Subject: Re: hate mail
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Reini <rreini@ford.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 1:20 PM
Subject: hate mail
>*** Reply to note of 01/30/98 07:03
>THIS IS A CORPORATE DOCUMENT - FOLLOW RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY
>
>After reading these notes, I have come to the opinion that they are not
what I
>would call "hate mail." They are frank. They are blunt. They contain strong
>opinions. But do they promote hate? To me, no they don't.
Harassment and vilification both in my opinion.... That takes in hate
too....
>
>Having said that, I'll say this: Someone has suggested you set up kill
filters
>to block your seeing their messages. I concur with this. Indeed, I thought
I
>saw a note of yours which said you had.
I've told Bruce Limber at least on two previous occasions not
to email me....
>
>I might suggest a stronger warning for individuals you absolutely do not
want
>to receive e-mail from -- something like "Please do not e-mail me again. If
>you do, I will consider it harassment and will complain to your ISP."
>
>Hopefully, this problem will pass.
>
>Regards,
>Roger Reini -- EESE - Elect. Distrib.(rreini@ford.com)
>MD5034, #5 (cube 2D015), Dearborn
>39-04358 FAX 39-00650 https://ees868.pd8.ford.com/u/rreini/
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:10 AM
To: P K Johnson
Subject: Fw: Re(4): "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
FYI
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai
Cc: osborndo <osborndo>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:41 PM
Subject: Re(4): "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
>Paul, Greetings! Here are some hastily composed replies to the points
>you raise. Sorry that you became the subject of discussion, which you
>are correct, is inapproapriate.
>
>K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>[snip]
>>First off, it is an oversimplification to call me a "critic of
>>the Baha'i Faith." I was a Baha'i for five teenage years, now
>[snip]
>
>Sorry if the description offends you. This (and the phrase was mine)
>has been my impression from seeing your postings on Talisman and
>Usenet. What sealed this impression for me was the hyperbola you once
>used
>about "the terrorized state of the U.S. Baha'i community" (9/4/97; I had
>meant to respond to it but at the time was too busy). This was so far
>removed from my experience and those of people I know, that I concluded,
>rightly or wrongly, that you simply took an antagonistic stance towards
>the Faith. That said, let me again offer my apologies if I have
>purveyed an inaccurate image of you by injudicious use of the term
>"critic" (though there is much you have posted that could easily give
>one that impression).
>
>>about my basically friendly attitude to the Baha'is. My article
>>in Gnosis was not an attack on the Faith at all, but a factual
>>report of the short life of the Talisman I discussion list.
>
>I am not in the position to judge on the purported facts (mainly because
>I know I don't have access to all of them), only to note that you (a)
>seem to report on one side of the issues (an incomplete perspective on
>the "facts"? -- not said as a criticism, necessarily, but an
>observation); (b) leave out at least one significant matter (admittedly
>an uncomfortable one) that raised serious questions about whether a
>group of participants might indeed have been pursuing an agenda hostile
>to the (elected) administrative bodies of the Faith; (c) use loaded
>terms like "inquisition" that unavoidably give the article a critical
>tone; and (d) neglect to mention that there are many scholars within the
>Baha'i community who certainly had different perspectives on the issues
>brought up by some of the Baha'i scholars on Talisman. So the picture
>wasn't the Baha'i authorities coming down on Baha'i scholars, but some
>Baha'i scholars with concerns and complaints, a bunch of stuff happening
>on Talisman (in which one cannot put white hats on some and black hats
>on others), and Baha'i institutions trying to deal with what were
>apparently some serious issues raised in the course of discussions.
>
>>The doctrines of the Faith are barely touched in the piece.
>>Since writing that article I have lost interest in the Faith,
>>and won't be writing about it again. By the way, I had earlier
>>written a piece for Gnosis, reporting on the publication of the
>>Aqdas. No one has ever accused this of being an attack either,
>>so something like 90% of the total verbiage I've published on
>>Baha'i has not been remotely the work of a "critic of the Faith"
>>in the sense Baha'is mean the term.
>[snip]
>
>Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
>
>>Second-- Mr. Manvell simply throws out the insulting accusation
>>of my using "half truths to attack the Faith" without citing a
>>single such misrepresentation out of the scores of purely factual
>>statements in the article. At the time it appeared, some people
>>on Talisman II dismissed it as erroneous, biased, etc.-- but
>>others challenged them to find a single misrepresentation of
>>facts therein, and not one was ever pointed out. My
>>"accusations" are based entirely on the "experience of the Faith"
>>of those I interviewed, and if Mr. Manvell's experience was
>>different it was undoubtedly because he was not in the same
>>position they were, of trying to reconcile their freedom and
>>objectivity as scholars with the restrictions on discourse
>>imposed by their coreligionists.
>
>I can't speak for Chris, though I'm sure none of us are out to insult
>you. It is also not fair for me or anyone to make personal
>characterizations based solely on their impressions. On the other hand,
>I don't think it is fair to minimize Chris's experience because of his
>different position ... in fact, any "factual" resume of the Talisman
>story really should take account of such perspectives.
>
>As far as the issues of concern to members of the Baha'i community,
>there are mechanisms within the community for addressing those. Often
>(and I can't say if it was also the case for the scholars you refer to
>in the article), one finds that people who take their complaints to an
>electronic forum have not explored these avenues. Really, prayer and
>use of the mechanisms for consultation in the Faith are much surer ways
>for reaching appropriate change in the context of a community evolving
>under the guidance of the Revelation of God than is going outside that
>route in ways that unfortunately create divisiveness and raise
>opposition (especially in electronic media). It is also a way in which
>the sharpness of ego in the search for what one feels is just ("I'm
>right!") can be replaced by the strength of detachment and faith ("If my
>view is right, then it will prevail, if not, what is right will
>prevail.") The latter, IMHO, is no less loving of justice than the
>former, but is much more conduscive to building unity and fellowship and
>promoting peace.
>
>>Third-- it was stated that there was "no substantive evidence
>that anyone tried to suppress the free exchange of information."
>>This is preposterous, as the archives of Talisman I contain
>>hundreds of examples of conservative Baha'is trying to shout down
>>those of a more liberal view, insisting that their positions and
>>commentary were simply unacceptable. Accusations of heresy were
>>a constant on the list. Correspondence by such
>>persons with the institutions is what led to the various
>>sanctions and character assassinations that followed.
>
>Again this seems to be an oversimplification. First of all, trying to
>divide the Baha'i community, or even the participants in Talisman, into
>"conservative" & "liberal" disregards the complexity of experience and
>opinion in the community. That said, I would have to agree that there
>was a lack of observance of Baha'i standards of courtesy and use of
>language in much of the discussion on Talisman. I didn't keep "score"
>(not being able to identify "sides" anyway) but I'm sure that those with
>diverse opinions exceeded the bounds of moderation. In fact, the then
>list owner ignored my repeated suggestions that a passage(s) from the
>Writings concerning scholars and language be included in the list's
>welcome message as a possible way of setting the tone for interaction on
>the list.
>
>As far as "suppress[ing] the free exchange of information," shouting
>down, to the extent that may have happened, does not equal suppression
>(it only contributes to a cycle of degrading discussion). And if one
>wanted to treat this subject fully, one would have to mention the
>unwillingness of some to discuss (without reference to personalities, of
>course!) an inadvertant posting that caused a lot of concern among some
>participants. In short, despite some positive aspects of Talisman,
>there was a lot that left one shaking one's head sadly (and I regret to
>whatever extent I may have contributed to the latter).
>
>As for people writing the Baha'i administrative institutions, I don't
>see that that brought down "sanctions" let alone "character
>assassinations." I think the Baha'i institutions are well capable of
>seeing through spurrious charges (if that's all there are) and
>identifying legitimate concerns (if there are any) regardless of who
>writes saying what. In any event, such writing is a good thing, if done
>in a prayerful spirit -- much better than taking matters into one's own
>hands and making divisive charges. Perhaps, in addition to greater
>efforts to observe Baha'i standards of discourse (and by saying this I
>should hasten to note that I in no way consider myself an exemplar in
>this!), concerned individuals should have written sooner ...
>
>>Fourth-- it is entirely disingenuous for people who have many
>>years of their lives and their whole identities tied up in a
>>religion to dismiss *someone else* for not being a "disinterested
>>outside observer." I'm much closer to being one than any of my
>>Baha'i critics are; are they willing to say that anything a true
>>believer Baha'i writes about the faith can be dismissed since
>>*they* are not "disinterested outside observers?" Come now.
>
>And now "true believer" Baha'i?? I'm not sure what this is supposed to
>mean, unless as a Baha'i one truly believes in the Revelation of
>Baha'u'llah (Eric Hoffer notwithstanding), but again suggest that such
>classifications or divisions of Baha'is do not hold up to any scrutiny.
>Also, I think it is unfair to imply that Baha'is cannot see the complex
>diversity among the Friends, diverse needs, experiences, ideas. I'm not
>sure it is appropriate to claim to be more objective than those among
>them who may identify what appears to be bias in at least some of your
>writing -- that may or may not be the case, but no one has the means to
>verify such a claim. In any event, one must evaluate what is said, not
>who said it.
>
>>In fact, Ira Rifkin of Religion News Service is *precisely* a
>>disinterested outside observer, yet his article was attacked much
>>more vigorously by Baha'is than mine has been. No matter how
>>biased I might be, the facts in the piece, which consists
>>overwhelmingly of facts, can be confirmed by others who don't
>>share my attitudes.
>
>I haven't seen Rifkin's article. Still, if it has the same shortcomings
>mentioned above, then it is subject to similar criticism.
>
>>Fifth-- "the story is much more complex than it appears in the
>>article." Well, of course. Reducing thousands of pages of
>>Internet conversation over 18 months to a single page is
>>certainly not going to convey the full complexity of the
>>situation, but was the best I could do in the circumstances.
>
>One cannot fault you for doing you best, and indeed it is difficult to
>summarize a lot of material. On the other hand, if the summary seems to
>be somewhat selective (whether or not that was the intent, which is
>another matter, and I'm not suggesting that you set out with such
>intent) then it's important to point that out.
>
>>Now, then: I have no more interest in this subject and ask that
>>my name be left out of further discussions. Would never have
>>known I was being discussed if someone hadn't emailed me about
>>this.
>
>Again, sorry that my mentioning your name made you the focus of
>discussion. In any event, I figured that word would eventually get to
>you. I'll respect your request, of course. Thank you for your reply.
>
>DZO
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:25 AM
To: Chris Manvell
Subject: two errors on CFV
Chris,
The CFV was actually posted on the 27th. I don't know immeditately if
that's what's on the Daily status report for CFVs on news.groups but
McQuitty's CFV was definitely posted first on the 27th. It could cause
someone to miss the vote by one day.
>NOTE: The CALL FOR VOTES for talk.religion.bahai was posted on news.groups
and >news.announce.newgroups on 28/Jan/1998.
Also, I messed up cutting and pasting and got "UK" attached to Ron's
address!!! You could change that too if you can find the time. McQuitty
caught it and emailed me on it so it's minor and okay to change....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:37 AM
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
-----Original Message-----
From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: CFV Rough Draft sent back....
>Greetings, Frederick.
> If you are well, it is well.
> It is probably only my low tech level. Later today I'll contact
>you to confirm nothings going on, or that it is.
> On another front, I'm getting some votes for trb, all legal,
>and if there is a massive no vote, then I may provide a lot of help
>in round three.
On further reflection:
Let me mention that I still expect a massive NO vote.... Too
many dirty tricks have been pulled all along by the BCCA and
others for them not to be the will of the administration.... They've
had free use of bahai-discuss since kicking me off in October,
and I can't imagine they've failed to put the unobserved nature
of that to anything but good use since, from their point of view....
> May you be surprised by how beneficial the future is.
Michael,
A month before they booted you out you sent me an optimistic
message about how you looked forward to things opening up....
Remember that? As I recall, I sent you back some bleak reply....
Sorry, but I feel the same is still in order.... 900 NO votes WERE
threatened and quite possible. Cole mentioned a month or two
ago how he was denounced in London by some administrator
in public.... They've had a full year to do that kind of thing at
Bahai meetings and elsewhere. I expect the worst.... If an
opening presents itself, you might mention on trb the use of Bahai
meetings to rally opposition against trb.... ANYTHING I say or
do now will be used against trb. The techies are warning me in
private email to just keep cool and let everyone else do the
talking. I worry though that not enough people other than myself
are posting anymore....
> Has a pointer been placed on talisman and irfan, and, if not may
>I do so?
> All the Best,
> Michael
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:43 AM
To: Emma Pease
Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail....
>Just keep calm and give the political no voters no excuse for claiming
>that your behaviour caused all the negative votes. Let the votetaker
>or the other proponents deal with any misconduct.
>
>Emma
Will do.... Thanks for the advice. There have been so many dirty
tricks all along I really worry something underhanded is taking
place behind the scenes.... If not online on the private Bahai lists,
I know Bahai meetings have been used in the past to denounce
people like Professor Cole at the University of Michigan who
have spoken out in any way.... Trb is definitely considered in that
same boat, I'm afraid....
I'm now just trying to say nothing, hope for the best, and let the
chips fall where they may, as they say....
Thanks again,
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 6:59 AM
Subject: Talk.religion.bahai: misdirected vote
A ballot for talk.religion.bahai has been sent to me. I am not the
votetaker.
All ballots should be sent to Rebecca McQuitty, address given below. Be
sure not to "cc" a copy to me. The vote should be confidential until the
posting of the RESULT by the votetaker.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:02 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Cc: mughal@alumni.caltech.edu
Subject: Fw: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Rebecca,
Someone's accidentally sent me their vote or a "cc" of it. I'm forwarding
it to you along with a cc to the individual. I've also posted a note to
news.groups reminding people to send votes directly and only to you.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Asim Mughal <mughal@alumni.caltech.edu>
To: mcq@wco.com <mcq@wco.com>
Cc: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>;
Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>; house@usq.edu.au
<house@usq.edu.au>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
>Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
>by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0001>
>
>Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
>Your name --> Asim Mughal
>[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ YES ] talk.religion.bahai
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:12 AM
To: K P Johnson
Subject: Fw: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
FYI....
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Manvell <chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
>Paul,
>
>I aplogise for the tone of my posting about my interaction with you a
>while back. I still stand by the basic impression (and I must emphasise
>that it was an impression) you gave me of being willing to discredit the
>Baha'i Faith. In my post, by half truth I meant putting only one side of
>the story (regarding Talisman) and I stand by that. It was not meant as
>an insult and maybe it would have been better to have written "biassed".
>I lived through that period on Talisman, so DO know what you were
>talking about, and did find the posts of certain people (I do not know
>if they were Baha'is or not) most unpleasant, personally insulting,
>backbiting and disrespectful to the Central Figures of our Faith,
>towards the Institutions of the Faith, and towards individuals who not
>always able to defend themselves. I do not dispute the facts that you
>quoted.
>
>In article <34D28134.70C1@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, Donald Zhang Osborn
><osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> writes
>>>Second-- Mr. Manvell simply throws out the insulting accusation
>>>of my using "half truths to attack the Faith" without citing a
>>>single such misrepresentation out of the scores of purely factual
>>>statements in the article. At the time it appeared, some people
>>>on Talisman II dismissed it as erroneous, biased, etc.-- but
>>>others challenged them to find a single misrepresentation of
>>>facts therein, and not one was ever pointed out. My
>>>"accusations" are based entirely on the "experience of the Faith"
>>>of those I interviewed, and if Mr. Manvell's experience was
>>>different it was undoubtedly because he was not in the same
>>>position they were, of trying to reconcile their freedom and
>>>objectivity as scholars with the restrictions on discourse
>>>imposed by their coreligionists.
>
>There is a problem that we have to resolve about religion and authority.
>As a Baha'i, I accept the succession of the Covenant and that, in those
>matters where they have the authority, the decisions of the House are
>sacrosanct. For instance, although it has caused me some grief, I have
>changed my Internet domain at the request of the House (although it did
>take a bit of time to do it). People of all religions have to accept
>certain basic tenets and it they do not like those tenets, then it
>implies that they do not have that strength of faith to accept their
>chosen Manifestation. By rejecting the authority of the House, one is
>denying the authority of the succesion and, by implication of
>Baha'u'llah.
>
>>I can't speak for Chris, though I'm sure none of us are out to insult
>>you. It is also not fair for me or anyone to make personal
>>characterizations based solely on their impressions. On the other hand,
>>I don't think it is fair to minimize Chris's experience because of his
>>different position ... in fact, any "factual" resume of the Talisman
>>story really should take account of such perspectives.
>
>One cannot help making "personal characterizations based solely on
>(one's) impressions". What was wrong was that I then my
>characterisation public, for which I apologise.
>
>As this is not really relevant to news.groups, I have set follow-ups to
>ARB only.
>
>Best wishes,
>--
>Chris Manvell
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Ron House wrote:
>The mere fact that they ARE moderators is the essence
>of the main problem. For those of us who want freedom
>of speech, a moderator is not performing a service.
>I characterise some of those moderators I have had
>experience of as "wiser than thou" because that is
>precisely my experience of their dealings. How else
>would you characterise someone who rejected an article,
>not for lacking relevance, not for being abusive,
>but for LACKING A CONCLUSION?????
I was told once upon a time that "sarcasm" was not allowed....
There goes much of the best literature of the human race....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: "Bahai Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics"
Ron House wrote:
>I can't get ARB, so could you please put news.groups
>back in, and advise anyone posting on ARB to do so
>as well? I am particularly interested in this
>discussion.
>
>In fact, this is a classic case of a need for TRB.
It definitely demonstrates the propagation and accessibility
problem with the alt.* hierarchy that has plagued discussion
since the last vote on talk.religion.bahai in March 1997....
Someone emailed me about a month ago that he was
pleasantly surprised to discover somehow that alt.religon.bahai
even existed!!!
He had voted YES!!!
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings
I'm crossposting this to news.groups from alt.religion.bahai as an
example of discussion that people like Ron House might want to
listen in or join but can't due to lack of accessbility of the alt.*
hierarchy, one of the major reasons justifying the forming of
talk.religion.bahai....
Ron, there's actually several responses to this but unfortunately
I probably shouldn't repost all of them to news.groups where
they'd be too off topic.... You're oughta luck, fella....
Dale Grider wrote in message <34D422AF.4F55@bellsouth.net>...
>I am a Christian who has been "independently investigating" the Baha'i
>faith. Frankly I have found some serious problems. One good place to
>start in terms of getting some feedback is with respect to the relation
>of Science and Religion. This, I understand, is a major doctrinal topic
>of consideration within Baha'i theology. I also understand that Baha'i
>theology interprets select biblical miracles symbolicaly. This would not
>nesacerily be so bad (depending on specifics) except that I find a great
>double standard in the rationale behind which of those miracles are
>allegedly to be "symbolized".
>
> On the one hand, apologists like William Sears, in his book The Wine of
>Astonishment use a "Science" defined according to a strict materialistic
>naturalism with which to refute the possibility of a literal
>interpretation of the Resurrection or Ascension of Christ. This outlook
>is typical of the Baha'i line of argument that is brought to bear when
>literal intepretation of select miracles is out of step with Baha'i
>presuppositions. However, in other instances, "Science" gets defined in
>very liberal terms that allow for the supernatural (read "SCIENCE AND
>THE BAHA'I FAITH" written by William S. Hatcher, taken from "Logic and
>Logos" pp.95-121.). Also Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha have no problem
>conceding the reality that literal miracles are part of a manifestations
>true ability. Further still, even Christian/biblical miracles like the
>virgin birth are considered perfectly acceptable, in literal terms, and
>evidently not against "Science" and good reason.
>Thus a double standard exists in which Science is either defined in
>materialistic/naturalistic terms to refute literal belief in, say, the
>Resurrection, while elsewhere the truly supernatural is accepted within
>Baha'i belief.
>More detail on this line of thought with specific quotes in context can
>be found in the "Science and religion" topic area at the Fireside
>Letters Baha'i/Christian homepage website.
>URL;
>
>https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht
ml
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 12:45 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: Vote Ack: talk.religion.bahai
This is an automatic message sent to you after your vote has been counted.
If this is correct, there is no need for you to reply. If your vote is
registered incorrectly then please vote again so I can fix it.
This is a public vote, and all addresses and votes will be listed in the
final voting result. You should keep this ack until you see your name in
the result.
You can change your vote by voting again. To erase your vote and eliminate
your address and vote from the final results listing, vote again and use a
CANCEL in place of YES or NO.
Voter address: FG@hotmail.com
Voter name: Asim Mughal
YES vote on talk.religion.bahai
Thank you for voting. For a copy of the Call For Votes (CFV), reply to me
and indicate which vote you want the CFV for; I may be running several.
-- Rebecca G. McQuitty (mcq@wco.com)
Running UseVote 3.0
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:32 AM
Subject: Help need! Re: Talk.religion.bahai: misdirected vote
All right, I sent Rebecca a copy of the misdirected vote and a note
about it and received back and auto-reply notice that I had voted in the
person's name! The only email address I have for her is: mcq@wco.com
Any suggestions?
------
FG wrote in message <6b48u9$5l5@news1.newsguy.com>...
>A ballot for talk.religion.bahai has been sent to me. I am not the
>votetaker.
>All ballots should be sent to Rebecca McQuitty, address given below. Be
>sure not to "cc" a copy to me. The vote should be confidential until the
>posting of the RESULT by the votetaker.
>
>--
>FG
>UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
>The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
>
>The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
>newsgroups specified in the CFV:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>news.groups
>alt.religion.bahai
>soc.culture.israel
>soc.rights.human
>talk.religion.misc
>soc.religion.bahai
>
>You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
>
>The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party
votetaker,
>Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:39 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Voting PROBLEM::::::::Re: Vote Ack: talk.religion.bahai
Someone incorrectly cc'd me their vote. When I tried to forward it to
you, this is what I got back! I haven't voted yet so nothing should
be recorded for my email address. Sorry this will require more
work for you....
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 11:45 AM
Subject: Vote Ack: talk.religion.bahai
>This is an automatic message sent to you after your vote has been counted.
>If this is correct, there is no need for you to reply. If your vote is
>registered incorrectly then please vote again so I can fix it.
>
>This is a public vote, and all addresses and votes will be listed in the
>final voting result. You should keep this ack until you see your name in
>the result.
>
>You can change your vote by voting again. To erase your vote and eliminate
>your address and vote from the final results listing, vote again and use a
>CANCEL in place of YES or NO.
>
>Voter address: FG@hotmail.com
>Voter name: Asim Mughal
>
> YES vote on talk.religion.bahai
>
>
>Thank you for voting. For a copy of the Call For Votes (CFV), reply to me
>and indicate which vote you want the CFV for; I may be running several.
>
> -- Rebecca G. McQuitty (mcq@wco.com)
> Running UseVote 3.0
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: How Baha'u'llah can follow Muhammad, "the Last prophet"
Since your post was censored by soc.religion.bahai, you might want
to know that voting is presently taking place on news.groups to form
an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai....
A forum that would be open to Muslims, as well as others....
Are you aware of the existence of alt.religion.bahai?
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-------original message follows:
Maryam Butson wrote in message <34d3564a.65426358@news.netlink.com.au>...
>The following post was rejected by the srb mods due to it not
>addressing Baha'i teachings. As I do wish to pick up on some points
>raised by Baha'is on Baha'u'llah following Muhammad, I posting this to
>sri as a prelude to my discussing those posts (however due it not
>containing Islamic content it may not be passed by them either) - THAT
>having been said I am also posting this to talk.religion.misc,
>alt.religion.bahai and ccing the posters from srb.
>Regards
>Maryam
>maryamATnetlink.com.au
>
>=======
>Having said I would crawl back under my rock, many of you brought up
>excellent points that I do wish to discuss further. Both to extend my
>own learning curve (I am a full believer in learning from those whith
>whom I come into contact even if we do not share the same perception
>of reality, even moreso at times); and also to give you my perspective
>as a Muslim on understanding my Holy Scripture.
>
>However as I said in my last email, I had people approach me privately
>(to which I am normally quite amiable) including one chap who out of
>the blue claiming to "be reading SRB", asked me if I was "out to get
>Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is" and "not to instill doubts in people's
>minds", when I was sitting minding my own business on IRC. I want to
>make it clear it's not my movtivation to attack the team on their home
>turf. I think there should be a forum where Baha'is can discuss
>matters pertaining to their own faith, in comfort and relative freedom
>- something I always enjoyed as a Baha'i contributor on SRB.
>Nonetheless when someone makes what I feel is an incorrect statement
>about Islam, or the beliefs of Muslims etc. I feel compelled to speak
>up as Baha'is would and do in non-Baha'i situations if someone makes
>a similarly incorrect statement about the Faith or the beliefs and
>practices: which is why I stuck my nose online in the first place.
>
>If people are more comfortable to discuss this on sri, I am more than
>happy to: although I understand the hesitation because of the
>prohibition on teaching Middle Eastern Muslims (I am Anglo-Australian
>FYI). Alternatively I am quite happy to discuss this in a respectful
>manner *here* on sri [should read srb], however I must point out (or
>at least record it for posterity) that I genuinely do not post just to
>create discord and disharmony. These are issues I fought long and
>hard to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend. The fact that
>I disagree with Baha'i interpretations of the Qur'an and Islam, does
>not mean I have it in for them. Of course I would like to share my
>perspective on Islam, however I understand this is a Baha'i forum and
>would much prefer happier and more educated relations between Baha'is
>and Muslims.
>
>That having been said, and assuming I don't see a flurry of posts that
>say "go away" I will endevour to pick up on some of the interesting
>points that were raised, God willing.
>
>Regards as always
>
>Maryam
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: How Baha'u'llah can follow Muhammad, "the Last prophet"
You and other Muslims might be interested in knowing voting is
presently taking place on news.groups for the formation of
talk.religion.bahai, an umoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith.
See my signature file at the end of this for more info....
----
Maryam Butson wrote in message <6b3msl$hpq$1@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>The following post was rejected by the srb [soc.religion.bahai] mods due to
it not
>addressing Baha'i teachings. As I do wish to pick up on some points
>raised by Baha'is on Baha'u'llah following Muhammad, I posting this to
>sri as a prelude to my discussing those posts (however due it not
>containing Islamic content it may not be passed by them either) - THAT
>having been said I am also posting this to talk.religion.misc,
>alt.religion.bahai and ccing the posters from srb.
>Regards
>Maryam
>maryamATnetlink.com.au
>
>=======
>Having said I would crawl back under my rock, many of you brought up
>excellent points that I do wish to discuss further. Both to extend my
>own learning curve (I am a full believer in learning from those whith
>whom I come into contact even if we do not share the same perception
>of reality, even moreso at times); and also to give you my perspective
>as a Muslim on understanding my Holy Scripture.
>
>However as I said in my last email, I had people approach me privately
>(to which I am normally quite amiable) including one chap who out of
>the blue claiming to "be reading SRB", asked me if I was "out to get
>Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is" and "not to instill doubts in people's
>minds", when I was sitting minding my own business on IRC. I want to
>make it clear it's not my movtivation to attack the team on their home
>turf. I think there should be a forum where Baha'is can discuss
>matters pertaining to their own faith, in comfort and relative freedom
>- something I always enjoyed as a Baha'i contributor on SRB.
>Nonetheless when someone makes what I feel is an incorrect statement
>about Islam, or the beliefs of Muslims etc. I feel compelled to speak
>up as Baha'is would and do in non-Baha'i situations if someone makes
>a similarly incorrect statement about the Faith or the beliefs and
>practices: which is why I stuck my nose online in the first place.
>
>If people are more comfortable to discuss this on sri, I am more than
>happy to: although I understand the hesitation because of the
>prohibition on teaching Middle Eastern Muslims (I am Anglo-Australian
>FYI). Alternatively I am quite happy to discuss this in a respectful
>manner *here* on sri [should read srb], however I must point out (or
>at least record it for posterity) that I genuinely do not post just to
>create discord and disharmony. These are issues I fought long and
>hard to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend. The fact that
>I disagree with Baha'i interpretations of the Qur'an and Islam, does
>not mean I have it in for them. Of course I would like to share my
>perspective on Islam, however I understand this is a Baha'i forum and
>would much prefer happier and more educated relations between Baha'is
>and Muslims.
>
>That having been said, and assuming I don't see a flurry of posts that
>say "go away" I will endevour to pick up on some of the interesting
>points that were raised, God willing.
>
>Regards as always
>
>Maryam
>
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 9:09 AM
Subject: Baha'u'llah & Muhammad
For your information, an unmoderated news group on the Bahai Faith is now
being voted on, talk.religion.bahai, which would have wider accessibility
than the present alt.religion.bahai.
See my sig file below for more info....
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.bahai,news.groups,soc.religion.islam,talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: How Baha'u'llah can follow Muhammad, "the Last prophet"
>You and other Muslims might be interested in knowing voting is
>presently taking place on news.groups for the formation of
>talk.religion.bahai, an umoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith.
>
>See my signature file at the end of this for more info....
>----
>
>Maryam Butson wrote in message <6b3msl$hpq$1@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>
>>The following post was rejected by the srb [soc.religion.bahai] mods due
to
>it not
>>addressing Baha'i teachings. As I do wish to pick up on some points
>>raised by Baha'is on Baha'u'llah following Muhammad, I posting this to
>>sri as a prelude to my discussing those posts (however due it not
>>containing Islamic content it may not be passed by them either) - THAT
>>having been said I am also posting this to talk.religion.misc,
>>alt.religion.bahai and ccing the posters from srb.
>>Regards
>>Maryam
>>maryamATnetlink.com.au
>>
>>=======
>>Having said I would crawl back under my rock, many of you brought up
>>excellent points that I do wish to discuss further. Both to extend my
>>own learning curve (I am a full believer in learning from those whith
>>whom I come into contact even if we do not share the same perception
>>of reality, even moreso at times); and also to give you my perspective
>>as a Muslim on understanding my Holy Scripture.
>>
>>However as I said in my last email, I had people approach me privately
>>(to which I am normally quite amiable) including one chap who out of
>>the blue claiming to "be reading SRB", asked me if I was "out to get
>>Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is" and "not to instill doubts in people's
>>minds", when I was sitting minding my own business on IRC. I want to
>>make it clear it's not my movtivation to attack the team on their home
>>turf. I think there should be a forum where Baha'is can discuss
>>matters pertaining to their own faith, in comfort and relative freedom
>>- something I always enjoyed as a Baha'i contributor on SRB.
>>Nonetheless when someone makes what I feel is an incorrect statement
>>about Islam, or the beliefs of Muslims etc. I feel compelled to speak
>>up as Baha'is would and do in non-Baha'i situations if someone makes
>>a similarly incorrect statement about the Faith or the beliefs and
>>practices: which is why I stuck my nose online in the first place.
>>
>>If people are more comfortable to discuss this on sri, I am more than
>>happy to: although I understand the hesitation because of the
>>prohibition on teaching Middle Eastern Muslims (I am Anglo-Australian
>>FYI). Alternatively I am quite happy to discuss this in a respectful
>>manner *here* on sri [should read srb], however I must point out (or
>>at least record it for posterity) that I genuinely do not post just to
>>create discord and disharmony. These are issues I fought long and
>>hard to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend. The fact that
>>I disagree with Baha'i interpretations of the Qur'an and Islam, does
>>not mean I have it in for them. Of course I would like to share my
>>perspective on Islam, however I understand this is a Baha'i forum and
>>would much prefer happier and more educated relations between Baha'is
>>and Muslims.
>>
>>That having been said, and assuming I don't see a flurry of posts that
>>say "go away" I will endevour to pick up on some of the interesting
>>points that were raised, God willing.
>>
>>Regards as always
>>
>>Maryam
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:01 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai
No need for a question mark on censorship....
``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>...
>
>FORWARDED
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370)
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000
>Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" <billh@samoatelco.com>
>To: pin00987@ping.be
>CC: srb <srb-mods@bcca.org>
>
>I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in
>a
>demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have
>reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion
>to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful
>manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting.
>Bill Hyman
>co-moderator
>soc-religion-bahai
>----------
>From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`)
>To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups
>Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT
>
>In a valuable contribution to my intellectual enrichment, "William P.
>Collins" <wcol@erols.com> wrote as follows:
>
William P. Collins wrote:
>> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made
a
>> habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>
Liquid Sky responded:
>If individuals go about branding people and their actions with
>"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self
>Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is
>explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in
>the hands of the Elected Institutions).
>
>And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the
>vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel
>infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up to
>those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for
>disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources.
What do you mean by "disaster" or have in mind?
>REPEAT:
>> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>
>This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul
>Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I
>will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am
>angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into
>a corner and emasculated.
It needn't go THAT far....
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai
No need for a question mark on censorship....
``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>...
>
>FORWARDED
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370)
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000
>Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" <billh@samoatelco.com>
>To: pin00987@ping.be
>CC: srb <srb-mods@bcca.org>
>
>I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in
>a
>demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have
>reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion
>to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful
>manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting.
>Bill Hyman
>co-moderator
>soc-religion-bahai
>----------
>From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`)
>To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups
>Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT
>
>In a valuable contribution to my intellectual enrichment, "William P.
>Collins" <wcol@erols.com> wrote as follows:
>
William P. Collins wrote:
>> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made
a
>> habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>
Liquid Sky responded:
>If individuals go about branding people and their actions with
>"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self
>Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is
>explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in
>the hands of the Elected Institutions).
>
>And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the
>vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel
>infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up to
>those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for
>disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources.
What do you mean by "disaster" or have in mind?
>REPEAT:
>> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>
>This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul
>Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I
>will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am
>angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into
>a corner and emasculated.
It needn't go THAT far....
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:06 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai
Robert A. Little wrote in message <6b8lp2$qct$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>There seems to be no question that the moderator censored the message sent
>to soc.religion.bahai (see below).
Thank you for admitting THAT....
>Respectfully,
>
>Robert A. Little
>``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>...
>>
>>FORWARDED
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>--------------
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370)
>>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000
>>Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>>From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" <billh@samoatelco.com>
>>To: pin00987@ping.be
>>CC: srb <srb-mods@bcca.org>
>>
>>I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in
>>a
>>demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have
>>reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion
>>to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful
>>manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting.
>>Bill Hyman
>>co-moderator
>>soc-religion-bahai
>>----------
>>From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`)
>>To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups
>>Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>1. I think that "reprehensible" acts have been quite clearly defined by
>>the Founders in their writings.
>>
>>2. If something warrants "reprehension," the authority to call it as
>>such, lies exclusively in the hands of the elected institutions.
>>
>>> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made
>a
>>> habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>>
>>If individuals go about branding people and their actions with
>>"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self
>>Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is
>>explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in
>>the hands of the Elected Institutions).
>>
>>And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the
>>vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel
>>infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up
to
>>those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for
>>disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources.
>>
>>REPEAT:
>>> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>>
>>This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul
>>Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I
>>will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am
>>angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into
>>a corner and emasculated.
>>
>>> The mere breathing in the same sentence that the actions of the
Universal
>>House
>>> of Justice can be compared to the manner of the ayatollahs of Iran is an
>>intentional
>>> affront and insult to Baha'is, who are themselves the electors and
>>candidates in the
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>> / \
>> / \
>> / \
>> _______________________
>> ````` from'''''
>> `~=x[silvermask]x=~'
>> ~~
>> \ /
>> ~~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________
>> ````` from'''''
>> `~\\ liquidsky //~'
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai
Robert A. Little wrote in message <6b8lp2$qct$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>There seems to be no question that the moderator censored the message sent
>to soc.religion.bahai (see below).
Thank you for admitting THAT....
>Respectfully,
>
>Robert A. Little
>``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>...
>>
>>FORWARDED
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>--------------
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370)
>>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000
>>Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>>From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" <billh@samoatelco.com>
>>To: pin00987@ping.be
>>CC: srb <srb-mods@bcca.org>
>>
>>I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in
>>a
>>demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have
>>reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion
>>to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful
>>manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting.
>>Bill Hyman
>>co-moderator
>>soc-religion-bahai
>>----------
>>From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`)
>>To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups
>>Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran
>>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>1. I think that "reprehensible" acts have been quite clearly defined by
>>the Founders in their writings.
>>
>>2. If something warrants "reprehension," the authority to call it as
>>such, lies exclusively in the hands of the elected institutions.
>>
>>> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made
>a
>>> habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>>
>>If individuals go about branding people and their actions with
>>"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self
>>Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is
>>explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in
>>the hands of the Elected Institutions).
>>
>>And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the
>>vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel
>>infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up
to
>>those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for
>>disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources.
>>
>>REPEAT:
>>> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves.
>>
>>This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul
>>Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I
>>will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am
>>angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into
>>a corner and emasculated.
>>
>>> The mere breathing in the same sentence that the actions of the
Universal
>>House
>>> of Justice can be compared to the manner of the ayatollahs of Iran is an
>>intentional
>>> affront and insult to Baha'is, who are themselves the electors and
>>candidates in the
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>> / \
>> / \
>> / \
>> _______________________
>> ````` from'''''
>> `~=x[silvermask]x=~'
>> ~~
>> \ /
>> ~~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________
>> ````` from'''''
>> `~\\ liquidsky //~'
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:29 AM
To: talisman
Cc: Loni BramsonLerche
Subject: Civil rights of covenant breakers? (was Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology)
-----Original Message-----
From: Loni BramsonLerche <Loni.BramsonLerche@ping.be>
To: Mark A. Foster <owner@sociologist.com>; Juan R. I. Cole
<jrcole@umich.edu>; Dean Betts <fdbetts@mindspring.com>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; irfan1@umich.edu
<irfan1@umich.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology
>Loni B. quoted:
> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>upheld."
If this is true, why have so many Bahais claimed their opposition to
talk.religion.bahai is based on fear of covenant breakers posting
messages to it? Would it not be their "civil right" to do so?
> (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice
> to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974)
> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186)
[clip]
>At 19:23 03-02-98 -0600, Mark A. Foster wrote:
>>At 08:12 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Juan R. I. Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Already the governmental authorities in Germany,
>>>who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their
>>>eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might
>>>be being run like a cult.
>>
>>Juan -
>>
>>Do you have more information on this point?
>>
>>Mark (Foster)
>>
>>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:31 AM
Subject: Civil rights of covenant breakers?
A relevant message to one of the concerns often brought up during
discussion for talk.religion.bahai:
-----Original Message-----
From: Loni BramsonLerche <Loni.BramsonLerche@ping.be>
To: Mark A. Foster <owner@sociologist.com>; Juan R. I. Cole
<jrcole@umich.edu>; Dean Betts <fdbetts@mindspring.com>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; irfan1@umich.edu
<irfan1@umich.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology
>Loni B. quoted:
> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>upheld."
If this is true, why have so many Bahais claimed their opposition to
talk.religion.bahai is based on fear of covenant breakers posting
messages to it? Would it not be their "civil right" to do so?
> (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice
> to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974)
> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186)
[clip]
>At 19:23 03-02-98 -0600, Mark A. Foster wrote:
>>At 08:12 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Juan R. I. Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Already the governmental authorities in Germany,
>>>who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their
>>>eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might
>>>be being run like a cult.
>>
>>Juan -
>>
>>Do you have more information on this point?
>>
>>Mark (Foster)
>>
>>
>
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: How Baha'u'llah can follow Muhammad, "the Last prophet"
Since your post was censored by soc.religion.bahai, you might want
to know that voting is presently taking place on news.groups to form
an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai....
A forum that would be open to Muslims, as well as others....
Are you aware of the existence of alt.religion.bahai?
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
-------original message follows:
Maryam Butson wrote in message <34d3564a.65426358@news.netlink.com.au>...
>The following post was rejected by the srb mods due to it not
>addressing Baha'i teachings. As I do wish to pick up on some points
>raised by Baha'is on Baha'u'llah following Muhammad, I posting this to
>sri as a prelude to my discussing those posts (however due it not
>containing Islamic content it may not be passed by them either) - THAT
>having been said I am also posting this to talk.religion.misc,
>alt.religion.bahai and ccing the posters from srb.
>Regards
>Maryam
>maryamATnetlink.com.au
>
>=======
>Having said I would crawl back under my rock, many of you brought up
>excellent points that I do wish to discuss further. Both to extend my
>own learning curve (I am a full believer in learning from those whith
>whom I come into contact even if we do not share the same perception
>of reality, even moreso at times); and also to give you my perspective
>as a Muslim on understanding my Holy Scripture.
>
>However as I said in my last email, I had people approach me privately
>(to which I am normally quite amiable) including one chap who out of
>the blue claiming to "be reading SRB", asked me if I was "out to get
>Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is" and "not to instill doubts in people's
>minds", when I was sitting minding my own business on IRC. I want to
>make it clear it's not my movtivation to attack the team on their home
>turf. I think there should be a forum where Baha'is can discuss
>matters pertaining to their own faith, in comfort and relative freedom
>- something I always enjoyed as a Baha'i contributor on SRB.
>Nonetheless when someone makes what I feel is an incorrect statement
>about Islam, or the beliefs of Muslims etc. I feel compelled to speak
>up as Baha'is would and do in non-Baha'i situations if someone makes
>a similarly incorrect statement about the Faith or the beliefs and
>practices: which is why I stuck my nose online in the first place.
>
>If people are more comfortable to discuss this on sri, I am more than
>happy to: although I understand the hesitation because of the
>prohibition on teaching Middle Eastern Muslims (I am Anglo-Australian
>FYI). Alternatively I am quite happy to discuss this in a respectful
>manner *here* on sri [should read srb], however I must point out (or
>at least record it for posterity) that I genuinely do not post just to
>create discord and disharmony. These are issues I fought long and
>hard to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend. The fact that
>I disagree with Baha'i interpretations of the Qur'an and Islam, does
>not mean I have it in for them. Of course I would like to share my
>perspective on Islam, however I understand this is a Baha'i forum and
>would much prefer happier and more educated relations between Baha'is
>and Muslims.
>
>That having been said, and assuming I don't see a flurry of posts that
>say "go away" I will endevour to pick up on some of the interesting
>points that were raised, God willing.
>
>Regards as always
>
>Maryam
--
Maryam Butson wrote in message <6b3msl$hpq$1@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>The following post was rejected by the srb mods due to it not
>addressing Baha'i teachings. As I do wish to pick up on some points
>raised by Baha'is on Baha'u'llah following Muhammad, I posting this to
>sri as a prelude to my discussing those posts (however due it not
>containing Islamic content it may not be passed by them either) - THAT
>having been said I am also posting this to talk.religion.misc,
>alt.religion.bahai and ccing the posters from srb.
>Regards
>Maryam
>maryamATnetlink.com.au
>
>=======
>Having said I would crawl back under my rock, many of you brought up
>excellent points that I do wish to discuss further. Both to extend my
>own learning curve (I am a full believer in learning from those whith
>whom I come into contact even if we do not share the same perception
>of reality, even moreso at times); and also to give you my perspective
>as a Muslim on understanding my Holy Scripture.
>
>However as I said in my last email, I had people approach me privately
>(to which I am normally quite amiable) including one chap who out of
>the blue claiming to "be reading SRB", asked me if I was "out to get
>Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is" and "not to instill doubts in people's
>minds", when I was sitting minding my own business on IRC. I want to
>make it clear it's not my movtivation to attack the team on their home
>turf. I think there should be a forum where Baha'is can discuss
>matters pertaining to their own faith, in comfort and relative freedom
>- something I always enjoyed as a Baha'i contributor on SRB.
>Nonetheless when someone makes what I feel is an incorrect statement
>about Islam, or the beliefs of Muslims etc. I feel compelled to speak
>up as Baha'is would and do in non-Baha'i situations if someone makes
>a similarly incorrect statement about the Faith or the beliefs and
>practices: which is why I stuck my nose online in the first place.
>
>If people are more comfortable to discuss this on sri, I am more than
>happy to: although I understand the hesitation because of the
>prohibition on teaching Middle Eastern Muslims (I am Anglo-Australian
>FYI). Alternatively I am quite happy to discuss this in a respectful
>manner *here* on sri [should read srb], however I must point out (or
>at least record it for posterity) that I genuinely do not post just to
>create discord and disharmony. These are issues I fought long and
>hard to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend. The fact that
>I disagree with Baha'i interpretations of the Qur'an and Islam, does
>not mean I have it in for them. Of course I would like to share my
>perspective on Islam, however I understand this is a Baha'i forum and
>would much prefer happier and more educated relations between Baha'is
>and Muslims.
>
>That having been said, and assuming I don't see a flurry of posts that
>say "go away" I will endevour to pick up on some of the interesting
>points that were raised, God willing.
>
>Regards as always
>
>Maryam
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:57 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights....
The relevance of Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship and denial of civil
rights
to the discussion for talk.religion.bahai should be obvious by now to most
thoughtful people....
-----Original Message-----
From: Juan R. I. Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; irfan1@umich.edu
<irfan1@umich.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology
>
>Dear [X]:
>
>The vast majority of Iranian Baha'is do not experience discrimination in
the
>form of physical violence. They experience it in the form of being shunned
>by their wider society, and from facing disabilities that come from being
>shunned. I can't tell you how many Iranian Baha'is have bitterly and at
>length complained to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, about the
>social discrimination they faced in Iran. People wouldn't invite them over
>to dinner, or if they did they considered the Baha'i guest ritually
polluted
>and would break the plates they ate on after they left. I always listened
>to such stories of shunning and discrimination with a great deal of
>sympathy, and they continue to pull at my heart strings. People should not
>be shunned for their beliefs. Nowadays, things are even worse. Iranian
>Baha'is may not attend university.
>
>However, I was threatened with being shunned by the Baha'is for my beliefs,
>and some of my old friends in the community now shun me, and don't invite
me
>over to dinner, or even answer my email greetings. And no doubt some of
>them would break their plates if I ate off them. Of course, it would be
>much worse if I had actually been declared a CB instead of only being
>accused of "making statements contrary to the covenant." I would have
>become a non-person to a lifetime of friends and family. A Baha'i
>intellectual who was declared a CB would not be welcome to use Baha'i
>libraries or archives or to benefit from Baha'i educational activities, in
>exactly the same way as the Iranian Baha'is are excluded from Shi`ite
>universities.
>
>Moreover, to suggest that the existential hell that a believer is put
>through by being "dropped from the rolls" or being accused of contravening
>the covenant is trivial is to take a cruel and instrumental view of human
>suffering. The Baha'i authorities are not welcome to treat human beings as
>though they are chess pieces, and as though they have no rights. And I
>predict to you that if they go on in the direction they are going, sooner
or
>later they will land in legal trouble. Already the governmental
authorities
>in Germany, who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their eye on
the
>Baha'i faith as an organization that might be being run like a cult. To
the
>extent that the Baha'i authorities (we are talking about Firuz Kazemzadeh,
>Robert Henderson, Douglas Martin, Farzam Arbab and Ian Semple among others)
>actually do run the religion like a cult, they will increase the
>surveillance of their activities by civil libertarians and the civil
>authorities in charge of protecting civil liberties in the free world.
>Already last fall, plans were made to send a German Counselor across the
>border to a neighboring country to silence a Baha'i living there. Don't
the
>Baha'i authorities have the slightest idea of what that would look like if
>it got into the European press?
>
>Anyway, I don't actually see the slightest difference between the way
>Baha'is treat those they think should be shunned for their ideas and the
way
>some Shi`ites shun the Iranian Baha'is. Nor do I see much difference in
the
>authoritarian style of the chief Shi`ite authorities and that of the
>so-called universal house of justice and its counselors. The only
>difference is that the Baha'is don't yet have control of the apparatus of a
>state, and so can't jail dissidents. Whether they would execute them if
>they could remains to be seen.
>
>
>cheers Juan
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights....
The relevance of Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship and denial of civil
rights
to the discussion for talk.religion.bahai should be obvious by now to most
thoughtful people....
-----Original Message-----
From: Juan R. I. Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; irfan1@umich.edu
<irfan1@umich.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology
>
>Dear [X]:
>
>The vast majority of Iranian Baha'is do not experience discrimination in
the
>form of physical violence. They experience it in the form of being shunned
>by their wider society, and from facing disabilities that come from being
>shunned. I can't tell you how many Iranian Baha'is have bitterly and at
>length complained to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, about the
>social discrimination they faced in Iran. People wouldn't invite them over
>to dinner, or if they did they considered the Baha'i guest ritually
polluted
>and would break the plates they ate on after they left. I always listened
>to such stories of shunning and discrimination with a great deal of
>sympathy, and they continue to pull at my heart strings. People should not
>be shunned for their beliefs. Nowadays, things are even worse. Iranian
>Baha'is may not attend university.
>
>However, I was threatened with being shunned by the Baha'is for my beliefs,
>and some of my old friends in the community now shun me, and don't invite
me
>over to dinner, or even answer my email greetings. And no doubt some of
>them would break their plates if I ate off them. Of course, it would be
>much worse if I had actually been declared a CB instead of only being
>accused of "making statements contrary to the covenant." I would have
>become a non-person to a lifetime of friends and family. A Baha'i
>intellectual who was declared a CB would not be welcome to use Baha'i
>libraries or archives or to benefit from Baha'i educational activities, in
>exactly the same way as the Iranian Baha'is are excluded from Shi`ite
>universities.
>
>Moreover, to suggest that the existential hell that a believer is put
>through by being "dropped from the rolls" or being accused of contravening
>the covenant is trivial is to take a cruel and instrumental view of human
>suffering. The Baha'i authorities are not welcome to treat human beings as
>though they are chess pieces, and as though they have no rights. And I
>predict to you that if they go on in the direction they are going, sooner
or
>later they will land in legal trouble. Already the governmental
authorities
>in Germany, who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their eye on
the
>Baha'i faith as an organization that might be being run like a cult. To
the
>extent that the Baha'i authorities (we are talking about Firuz Kazemzadeh,
>Robert Henderson, Douglas Martin, Farzam Arbab and Ian Semple among others)
>actually do run the religion like a cult, they will increase the
>surveillance of their activities by civil libertarians and the civil
>authorities in charge of protecting civil liberties in the free world.
>Already last fall, plans were made to send a German Counselor across the
>border to a neighboring country to silence a Baha'i living there. Don't
the
>Baha'i authorities have the slightest idea of what that would look like if
>it got into the European press?
>
>Anyway, I don't actually see the slightest difference between the way
>Baha'is treat those they think should be shunned for their ideas and the
way
>some Shi`ites shun the Iranian Baha'is. Nor do I see much difference in
the
>authoritarian style of the chief Shi`ite authorities and that of the
>so-called universal house of justice and its counselors. The only
>difference is that the Baha'is don't yet have control of the apparatus of a
>state, and so can't jail dissidents. Whether they would execute them if
>they could remains to be seen.
>
>
>cheers Juan
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: <htp://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Civil rights of covenant breakers?
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34d973b5.167798543@news.microserve.net>...
>Fred, this is a polite request for you to stop dropping your reposts of
>others articles into news.groups in your continuing effort to convice
>everyone to vote for your proposed group. I'm sure I'm not the only one who
>feels that you may only be damaging your position by continuously harping
on
>points you made repeatedly during the RFD.
>
>Please, just let the vote proceed quietly.
Dave, the reposts are an attempt to help objective observers have
access to sufficiently independent opinions to make a fair appraisal
of what's really involved.... I've been portrayed for over a year now by
many Bahais as someone all alone in my belief that an unmoderated
newsgroup is sorely needed. That just isn't true. The reposts show it.
Many Bahais and non-Bahais or ex-Bahais are afraid to speak out.
I think that should worry most people....
"Harping," to my mind, accepts too much the Bahai characterization
of me and others and fails to realize how exceedingly serious and
pervasive the repercussions of censorship are and have been in the
Bahai faith....
What I have reposted is relevant to the general and major issues
surrounding talk.religion.bahai.... See the message by Juan Cole
that discusses the concerns of the German and Russian States
about the Bahai Faith....
"Quietly" would allow too much to be swept under the rug....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Civil rights of covenant breakers?
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34dcc3df.420183205@news.microserve.net>...
>CFV means "Call For Votes", not "Call For More Discussion and campaigning."
What Bahais call covenant breaking has been a major issue all along. When
I came across an authoritative Bahai quotation on talisman that seemed to
address the civil rights of covenant breakers, I thought it might be
interesting
to all interested persons to look at it. That's all.... I thought it would
help
clarify the issue. Sorry so many feel otherwise.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 7:42 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Thanks....
Just writing to say thanks for your recent messages.... It's
a rare pleasure not to feel all alone....
Apparently, we reached the stage in voting when the
fundamentalists appeared worried about which way things
were going and had to beat the hell out of me again to
reassure themselves.... The naive techies are the ones I
can't get over....
I won't be reposting anything again, though, so as not to
give people an excuse to jump all over me and trb....
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 8:10 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Control of media?
Juan Cole wrote:
> >Baha'i power elite is explicitly committed to censoring everything
Baha'is
> >write; to controlling all media even remotely connected with the Baha'i
> >faith <<
Burl Barer responded:
> As a Baha'i who writes and produces media material for the proclamation
and
> promotion of the Baha'i faith, I can personally attest that the above
> statement is absolute nonsense.
"Absolute nonsense"? Oh, please............................................
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 7:07 AM
To: Chris Stone
Subject: Re: Status of talk.religion.bahai
The CFV was posted on January 17th. Sorry you didn't know. I had
assumed the votetaker emailed you too but I see in a note she says
it bounced....
Hope you get this.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 7:24 AM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
Guy Macon wrote in message <6bi35l$ao0$2@news01.deltanet.com>...
If you think that you can
>ignore our advice when we tell you not tp campaign during the CFV, you
>are sadly mistaken. Ask any of the proponents; they will tell you that
>they are commited to following the rules for running a RFD/CFV, and that
>they appreciate our efforts to keep those who oppose the proposal from
>breaking those same rules.
I am committed to following the rules and DO appreciate the help of
others here in pointing that perhaps I clarified when I should not have....
The 2nd CFV has been posted. Let's drop this thread....
>If we have a repeat what happened on the last vote, I want to be able
>to say that the proponents were sqeeaky clean awith no hint of anything
>even slightly unfair. That will be a big Credit to the Bahai faith.
I agree wholeheartedly....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 7:53 AM
Subject: Pointers posted
--
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 8:38 AM
To: talisman
Cc: bahai-st
Subject: Last Pointer to CFV: talk.religion.bahai
Permit me to mention that the last Call For Votes (CFV) for
talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the newsgroups specified in
the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 9:03 AM
To: Rebecca McQuitty
Subject: Re: 2nd CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
>Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
>by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0002>
>
>Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
>Your name -->FG
>[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[YES ] talk.religion.bahai
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
----------
From: Christopher Stone[SMTP:cstone@ironwood.ru]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 11:11 AM
To: 'FG'
Subject: RE: Status of talk.religion.bahai
I have already voted YES.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 2:07 PM
To: Chris Stone
Subject: Re: Status of talk.religion.bahai
The CFV was posted on January 17th. Sorry you didn't know. I had
assumed the votetaker emailed you too but I see in a note she says
it bounced....
Hope you get this.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 12:34 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Subject: Vote Ack: talk.religion.bahai
This is an automatic message sent to you after your vote has been counted.
If this is correct, there is no need for you to reply. If your vote is
registered incorrectly then please vote again so I can fix it.
This is a public vote, and all addresses and votes will be listed in the
final voting result. You should keep this ack until you see your name in
the result.
You can change your vote by voting again. To erase your vote and eliminate
your address and vote from the final results listing, vote again and use a
CANCEL in place of YES or NO.
Voter address: FG@hotmail.com
Voter name: FG
YES vote on talk.religion.bahai
Thank you for voting. For a copy of the Call For Votes (CFV), reply to me
and indicate which vote you want the CFV for; I may be running several.
-- Rebecca G. McQuitty (mcq@wco.com)
Running UseVote 3.0
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 7:25 PM
To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: 2nd CFV: talk.religion.bahai
*The Baha'i Studies List*
LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
before voting.
Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
post.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
inserts.
Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
(do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.vote.yes
[ NO ] example.vote.no
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
prevent your vote from being counted.
When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
correctly.
-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0004>
Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
Your name -->
[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
lists:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
a.bsu.religion
alt.religion
alt.religion.islam
news.admin.censorship
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
talk.religion.buddhism
talk.religion.newage
uk.religion.interfaith
uk.religion.misc
uk.religion.other-faiths
The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
-
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
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 7:57 PM
To: talisman@umich.edu
Subject: 2nd CFV: talk.religion.bahai
LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the
voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV
before voting.
Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post
it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place
it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except
the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct
questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the
proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT
post.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged"
addresses the votetaker cannot decipher.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <mcq@wco.com>.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do
*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing
of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software
inserts.
Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your
vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO,
ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote
(do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.vote.yes
[ NO ] example.vote.no
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot.
Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may
prevent your vote from being counted.
When you're finished, mail the ballot to <mcq@wco.com>. Replying to
this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily
use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered
correctly.
-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai
Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this
Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here:
by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | <TRB-0008>
Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address).
Your name -->
[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=-
DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai (posted separately)
The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing
lists:
Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies
Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
Mailing list name: h-bahai
Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu
Mailing list name: Talisman
Submission address: talisman@umich.edu
Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
a.bsu.religion
alt.religion
alt.religion.islam
news.admin.censorship
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
talk.religion.buddhism
talk.religion.newage
uk.religion.interfaith
uk.religion.misc
uk.religion.other-faiths
The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 7:15 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Last Pointer to CFV: talk.religion.bahai
>Dear Fred,
>
>Could you explain to me what the difference would be from having an
>"alt" list to having a "talk" list?
>
>Susan
The alt.* hierarchy has very limited accessibility. Many ISPs do not
offer the hierarchy at all. Hence, fewer people may participate. This
fact has been discussed at great length for over a year now.... It is
one of the major reasons I and others propose talk.religion.bahai.
The talk.* hierarchy is analogous to a major newspaper versus a
little local one in podunk.... All ISPs usually offer all the newsgroups
on it. Everyone, for instance, who voted YES last time (and this
time) would then be able to access it.
Baha'u'llah was averse to the destruction of books, and, I would
think, newspapers, or the electronic journals of our day....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Guy Macon wrote in message <6bi35l$ao0$2@news01.deltanet.com>...
>>If we have a repeat what happened on the last vote, I want to be able
>>to say that the proponents were sqeeaky clean awith no hint of anything
>>even slightly unfair. That will be a big Credit to the Bahai faith.
What do we talk about during the interest poll?
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Steve Vinterna wrote in message <6bsdp0$he9@drn.zippo.com>...
From here i[t] looks as if once
>talk.religion.bahai is created, you'll have nothing left to talk about. I
>certainly hope that is not the case.
It's more that many or some are afraid to say anything.... Aren't you?
I am....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 8:27 AM
To: Juan R. I. Cole
Subject: Re: Ideas?
>No one tells me these things.
Sarcasm? You receive a lot of complaints since no one may make
them in public? I've received a few that have made me feel like the
Holy Confessor....
>Detweiler would be a godsend if he could (stupidly) provoke the interest of
>the press in the Great Baha'i Cyberspace Inquisition. These people are
>their own worst enemies, and they have *no* idea how fascist they are or
>would sound in the real world.
My point was Detweiler and ergo others seem to WANT things thrown
into the press.... I don't really care to satisfy any desire of the
fanatics....
And don't trust them one iota.
I believe they may very well have again used the BCCA listservs to cobble
together, "unobserved," another defeat for talk.religion.bahai. When the
massive NO becomes public, and David Lawrence, i.e., Usenet,
refuses to overturn it, what would you recommend? I don't believe I or
anyone should agree to go back to alt.religion.bahai and wait another
six months for the third defeat. The only thing I can think of is to stay on
news.groups, crossposting everything to alt.religion.bahai and every
newsgroup listed on the RFD until....
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>In <6bs0m1$4jo@news3.newsguy.com> "FG"
<FG@hotmail.com> writes:
>We emulate a Friends' meeting and listen in silence.
....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Emma Pease wrote in message ...
>
>>We emulate a Friends' meeting and listen in silence.
....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 10:11 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights....
Mike Buonsanto wrote in message <34E4B226.E0B9FF9D@oceanus.haystack.edu>...
>I don't think non-Baha'is should have any fear of how they would be
>treated in a possible future Baha'i-dominated world, as long as the
>Baha'is obey what is written in the Writings.
And should non-Bahais take the example set during the interest
polling for talk.religion.bahai as a taste of what to expect, as a
taste of what it means to "obey what is written in the Writings"?
Two principles just
>quoted in SRB are (quotes from 'Abdul-Baha in the Promulgation of
>Universal Peace):
>
> "Baha'u'llah also taught that prejudices - whether religious,
>racial, patriotic or political - are destructive to the foundations of
human development. Prejudices of any kind are the destroyers of
human happiness and welfare. Until they are dispelled, the
advancement of the world of humanity is not possible...
> Seventh, Baha'u'llah taught that an equal standard of human rights
>must be recognized and adopted. In the estimation of God all men are
>equal; there is no distinction or preferment for any soul in the
>dominion of His justice and equity..."
>
>In other words, Baha'is are forbidden to be prejudiced against someone
>because of their religious or other beliefs, whatever they may be, and
>they must accord them equal human rights!
What of the "equal human rights" of those who wanted
talk.religion.bahai and voted YES last year? What of the human rights
of covenant breakers, which the Writings also claim should be
protected? HYPOCRISY Writ Large is all I see....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights....
Mike Buonsanto wrote in message <34E4B226.E0B9FF9D@oceanus.haystack.edu>...
>I don't think non-Baha'is should have any fear of how they would be
>treated in a possible future Baha'i-dominated world, as long as the
>Baha'is obey what is written in the Writings.
And should non-Bahais take the example set during the interest
polling for talk.religion.bahai as a taste of what to expect, as a
taste of what it means to "obey what is written in the Writings"?
Two principles just
>quoted in SRB are (quotes from 'Abdul-Baha in the Promulgation of
>Universal Peace):
>
> "Baha'u'llah also taught that prejudices - whether religious,
>racial, patriotic or political - are destructive to the foundations of
human development. Prejudices of any kind are the destroyers of
human happiness and welfare. Until they are dispelled, the
advancement of the world of humanity is not possible...
> Seventh, Baha'u'llah taught that an equal standard of human rights
>must be recognized and adopted. In the estimation of God all men are
>equal; there is no distinction or preferment for any soul in the
>dominion of His justice and equity..."
>
>In other words, Baha'is are forbidden to be prejudiced against someone
>because of their religious or other beliefs, whatever they may be, and
>they must accord them equal human rights!
What of the "equal human rights" of those who wanted
talk.religion.bahai and voted YES last year? What of the human rights
of covenant breakers, which the Writings also claim should be
protected? HYPOCRISY Writ Large is all I see....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 1998 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: What is the accepted stand on divulging your vote?
Chris Stone wrote in message <01bd399d$75b225e0$1bc0c8c3@cstone>...
>A newsgroup creation committee, basically composed of news.groups regulars
who
>have some idea of the technical criteria for a sound newsgroup:
hierarchical
>names, reasonable moderation policies, and so forth.
I would be in favor of such a system.... Voting seems purposeless
and futile in the context I've experienced it.... The impartiality of the
UVV
or whatever would be preferable to interest polling.
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: What is the accepted stand on divulging your vote?
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34f27874.100712910@news.microserve.net>...
>Fred, the context in which you've experienced it has been largely a result
>of your steadfast refusal to listen to advice from people more familiar
with
>the process than you. I find it difficult to believe that you would pay any
>more attention to a formal committee than you did the same people in an
>informal group who tried previously to supply you with advice.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, I have listened and followed
the advice of a number of people, many times.... In my view, your
sweeping characterization of me is neither fair nor accurate and is
all too reminiscent of other quarters....
It has often seemed to me many news.groupies really don't understand
how sweet but oppressive many Bahais are and to what lengths they'll
go to.... Trb is not rec.fun.cats.... There's a long history that can't be
ignored, and isn't by those who disregard or have complete contempt
for the rules of group formation.
Other than a committee, I don't see any way around the tyrannization of
Usenet.... It seems to me some of the other political defeats mentioned
demonstrate that as well. Rebecca's concern that appointment or
election to the committee itself would then become politicized is
probably quite right....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
.... ....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: What is the accepted stand on divulging your vote?
Rebecca McQuitty wrote in message <6c7m7v$oie$3@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>Interest *is* one of the technical criteria for a sound newsgroup.
What should be done when documented traffic is ignored? For instance,
dejanews shows alt.religion.bahai has had **** 5, 835 **** messages
posted to it as of this morning since last April....
You
>could replace NO votes with a committee, but you still need some way to
>demonstrate interest.
What would be wrong with using figures from dejanews when they are
available? Someone in this thread mentioned David Lawrence has the
prerogative of overturning a NO vote, though he didn't a number of
times.... Couldn't that capacity be delegated to elected or selected
news.groupies or volunteers? A consortium, perhaps, created or
delegated by the system administrators who provide the resources
that support Usenet?
Modern societies have courts of appeal; Usenet ought to have
something comparable....
--
FG
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm.
The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the
newsgroups specified in the CFV:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.religion.bahai
soc.culture.israel
soc.rights.human
talk.religion.misc
soc.religion.bahai
You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th.
The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker,
Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Emma Pease wrote
>We emulate a Friends' meeting and listen in silence.
....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 9:48 AM
To: talisman
Cc: bahai-st
Subject: Re talk.religion.bahai
Emma Pease wrote
>We emulate a Friends' meeting and listen in silence.
....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings
Grider wrote:
>>I am a Christian who has been "independently investigating" the Baha'i
>>faith. Frankly I have found some serious problems. One good place to
>>start in terms of getting some feedback is with respect to the relation
Donald Zhang Osborn wrote
>A web site that may interest you and others concerning Baha'i-Christian
>dialogue is https://www.ozemail.com.au/~cdibdin/index.html
Is the site owned and operated by a Bahai?
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 8:51 AM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: RESULTS?
My worry and anxiety have gotten the best of me....
If permissible, I'd appreciate your sharing with me
what's going on, or has gone wrong with the vote....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
"Often silence is the wisest thing for a man to heed." --Pindar
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 9:16 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: results??
Ron,
I don't know what's going on with the vote. It must be
awfully close and the votetaker is picking through
the RESULTS.... I hope trying to invalidate NO votes.
The only other thing I can think of is there has been
another massive NO vote and the news.groupies
are huddling on what to do about it....
I've emailed this morning the votetaker Rebecca
McQuitty. I'll let you know if I hear anything back
from her.
Fred
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 7:55 PM
To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
*The Baha'i Studies List*
RESULT
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
There were 109 YES votes and 65 NO votes, for a total of 174 valid
votes. There were 10 abstains and 3 invalid ballots.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES
and NO) votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO
votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.
Unless serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
group may not be voted on again for six months.
Please post all discussion of this RESULT to news.groups.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
The voting period closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer conducted this vote. Direct
questions about the proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
talk.religion.bahai Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
110576.764 [at] compuserve.com Henri-Charles de Flhrier
aelyria [at] goodnet.com Alma Engels
afshin.afrashteh [at] utoronto.ca Afshin Afrashteh
alex [at] unicorn.us.com Alex Matulich
an588 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Catherine Woodgold
ann_mcginley [at] hotmail.com Ann McGinley
aull [at] ll.mit.edu Brian Aull
baird [at] gate.net Baird Stafford
bill [at] srisoft.com Bill W Smith Jr
bmathieu [at] micron.net Brent Mathieu
bn872 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Michael McKenny
booda [at] datasync.com Martin H. Booda
bpurosky [at] visix.com Bill Purosky
Carol_Bowie [at] mindlink.bc.ca Carol Bowie
cdt [at] op.net Chris Trumbore
Chris [at] breacais.demon.co.uk Christopher John Manvell
chriseb [at] nortel.ca Chris Ebenezer
cipher [at] mindspring.com David A. Howard
ck508 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Lionel Wagner
cstone [at] math.unm.edu Chris Stone
curtis_whalen+usenet [at] geocities.com Curtis (Jewell) Whalen
dan [at] remote.control.com Dan L. Pierson
david [at] home.net.nz David Farrar
dbowie [at] sas.upenn.edu David Bowie
desiegel [at] aol.com David E. Siegel
dputzolu [at] teleport.com David M. Putzolu
ekako [at] northcoast.com Kindrick Ownby
elliotglaysher [at] yahoo.com
emma [at] csli.Stanford.EDU Emma Pease
er_er_an [at] hotmail.com J Vuh
fbaker [at] ncsa.uiuc.edu Frank M. Baker
fed [at] millcomm.com Frank Druktainis
FG [at] hotmail.com FG
fgsoler [at] value.net Frank G. Soler
forumbahai [at] es.co.nz Steve Marshall
fran [at] crhc.uiuc.edu Frances Baker
gaillard [at] panix.com Ed Gaillard
gazissax [at] netcom.com Lynn Diana Gazis
gglaser [at] minn.net Ginger Glaser
ggw [at] wolves.durham.nc.us Gregory G. Woodbury
hmiddlem [at] cyberus.ca Harry T Middleman
hood [at] Eng.Sun.COM Mark Hood
house [at] usq.edu.au Ron House
IJF16 [at] student.canterbury.ac.nz Isaac Freeman
irina [at] rempt.xs4all.nl Irina Rempt
J.K.A.Singh-Rathore [at] ping.be J.K.A. Singh-Rathore
jaed [at] best.com Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
jake [at] netins.net R. "Jake" Jakoubek
james.farrar [at] ic.ac.uk James Farrar
jbh5 [at] cornell.edu Jean B. Hunter
jdg [at] but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com John David Galt
jeffd [at] goodnet.com Jeffrey J. Davey
jeffford [at] cs.utexas.edu Jeff Ford
jharnick [at] nornet.on.ca John A. Harnick
jkrobert [at] students.wisc.edu.nolongpig Jason Roberts
jmalina [at] wenet.net Jo Ann Malina
jolomo [at] netcom.com Joe Morris
jonathan [at] lionheart.net Jonathan Padgett
JoySafari [at] aol.com
jtbell [at] cs1.presby.edu Jon Bell
karromde [at] nyx.net Ken Arromdee
kebera [at] Cyblings.ON.CA Krishna E. Bera
keillan [at] quest.cc.purdue.edu Kelly G. Willis
kopetsbj [at] cs.purdue.edu Brett J. Kopetsky
kuch [at] ms.uky.edu John Allen Kuchenbrod
kyra [at] flash.net Debra Davies Huffman
lightspring [at] jps.net Thomas Spellman
maryam [at] netlink.com.au Maryam Butson
Massoud.Ajami [at] sdsu.eduDELETE Massoud Ajami
matt [at] mec.edu Matt Bancroft
mcgregoa [at] Cognos.COM Alayne McGregor
meflin [at] dimensional.com James S. Lopeman
michael [at] unicorn-connection.co.uk Michael Parry
mirele [at] super.zippo.com Deana M. Holmes
mtgalvin [at] ouray.cudenver.edu Michael-Teunis Galvin
mughal [at] alumni.caltech.edu Asim Mughal
neil [at] nkelley.demon.co.uk Neil Kelley
neilc [at] stanford.edu Neilist Crellin
obfusa [at] mack.rt66.com Franklin D. Schlatter Group Orthodox
olav [at] viking.mv.com Olav Nieuwejaar
[at] moa.net
philh [at] vision25.demon.co.uk Philip Hunt
PIERCEED [at] sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu Eric David Pierce
pjh1 [at] leicester.ac.uk Pete Humble
pjohnson [at] vsla.edu K. Paul Johnson
poul [at] earthling.net.NOSPAM.PLEASE Poul A. Costinsky
rdetweil [at] boi.hp.com Dick Detweiler
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
RK-esperantisto [at] juno.com Rick Koshko
roesingere [at] indy.tce.com Eric G Roesinger
romanc [at] rpi.edu Cesar C. Palerm
roxanamorgan11 [at] home.com Roxana Morgan
rreini [at] wwnet.net Roger Reini
rtower [at] yahoo.com Ron Tower
sas [at] frontiernet.net Stuart Schweid
simon [at] darkmere.gen.nz Simon Lyall
slavitch [at] loran.com Michael Slavitch
Tobias.Erle [at] GMX.net Tobias Erle
todd [at] nutria.nrlssc.navy.mil Todd Mullins
tommycarter [at] usa.net Tommy Carter
tricia [at] glonet.co.nz Tricia Hague-Blackford
Wayne_Sanders-Unrein_at_2-HTI-2VA [at] ccgate.hac.com Wayne Sanders-Unrein
whateverman [at] erols.com Jon Richt
wisanr [at] norwich.net Dick Wisan
WTobyL [at] aol.com Toby Lomax
wwfiv [at] ix.netcom.com William W. Farley IV
xanthian [at] well.com Kent Paul Dolan
znmeb [at] teleport.com M. Edward Borasky
zutetflute [at] aol.com Andree Maani
Voted No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid
andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew Pemberton-Pigott
babboo [at] writeme.com Peter Buchy
barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy
bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell
centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf Renkema
d [at] idiom.com d
David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David Robinson
djull [at] mindspring.com David Jull
dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai" Wolff
EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard Uthke
fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts
forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes Benning
Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias
globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon
gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier
Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson
hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis
hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank Fung
hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry House
hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman
iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai
jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor
jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim S. Jam
judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook
kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn
krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas
ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani
lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith
LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne Seamans
marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson
mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi
mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael Cook
mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer Locher
momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen
naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber
nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel Austin-Weeks
nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers
ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill
pan [at] syix.com Pan
patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti
persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer
petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook
pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler
ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas Polzer
red [at] rahul.net Red
riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga Junior
rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael Palmeiro
roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth
rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley
samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman
shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao
stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown
steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner
steve [at] Watt.COM Steve Watt
stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Donald Strong
Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte
talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael Anderson
tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson
todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches
wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill Maddox
wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L. Pagel
Abstained
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
af479 [at] rgfn.epcc.Edu Samandar Roshan-Zamir
biow [at] ezmort.com Christopher Biow
chris [at] kzim.com Christopher Robin Zimmerman
guymacon [at] deltanet.com Guy Macon
hkt [at] wwa.com Henrietta Thomas
johnn [at] jolt.mpx.com.au John New
kpascoe [at] ford.com Kathy Pascoe
NEW_DAWN [at] compuserve.com Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
rick [at] helix.nih.gov Rick Troxel
rpascoe [at] freenet.npiec.on.ca robert Pascoe
Votes in error
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fpbbgre [at] gnenanxv.np.am Scooter
! Invalid address
notarius [at] nym.alias.net Notarius
! Anonymous remailer
tom-hodges [at] geocities.com Tom Hodges
! No ballot
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
-
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
----------
From: Rebecca G. McQuitty[SMTP:mcq@wco.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 7:57 PM
To: talisman@umich.edu
Subject: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
RESULT
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
There were 109 YES votes and 65 NO votes, for a total of 174 valid
votes. There were 10 abstains and 3 invalid ballots.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES
and NO) votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO
votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.
Unless serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
group may not be voted on again for six months.
Please post all discussion of this RESULT to news.groups.
Newsgroups line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
The voting period closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998.
A neutral, third-party volunteer conducted this vote. Direct
questions about the proposed group to the proponents.
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty <mcq@wco.com>
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need
exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would
meet that need.
Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have
been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying
points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day
for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional
conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost
from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for
talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.*
hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest,
justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith
on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the
easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher
rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather
than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and
will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less
well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate,
especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were
unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the
hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along
as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an
alternative unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure
in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
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.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large
ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and
any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
talk.religion.bahai Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
110576.764 [at] compuserve.com Henri-Charles de Flhrier
aelyria [at] goodnet.com Alma Engels
afshin.afrashteh [at] utoronto.ca Afshin Afrashteh
alex [at] unicorn.us.com Alex Matulich
an588 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Catherine Woodgold
ann_mcginley [at] hotmail.com Ann McGinley
aull [at] ll.mit.edu Brian Aull
baird [at] gate.net Baird Stafford
bill [at] srisoft.com Bill W Smith Jr
bmathieu [at] micron.net Brent Mathieu
bn872 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Michael McKenny
booda [at] datasync.com Martin H. Booda
bpurosky [at] visix.com Bill Purosky
Carol_Bowie [at] mindlink.bc.ca Carol Bowie
cdt [at] op.net Chris Trumbore
Chris [at] breacais.demon.co.uk Christopher John Manvell
chriseb [at] nortel.ca Chris Ebenezer
cipher [at] mindspring.com David A. Howard
ck508 [at] freenet.carleton.ca Lionel Wagner
cstone [at] math.unm.edu Chris Stone
curtis_whalen+usenet [at] geocities.com Curtis (Jewell) Whalen
dan [at] remote.control.com Dan L. Pierson
david [at] home.net.nz David Farrar
dbowie [at] sas.upenn.edu David Bowie
desiegel [at] aol.com David E. Siegel
dputzolu [at] teleport.com David M. Putzolu
ekako [at] northcoast.com Kindrick Ownby
elliotglaysher [at] yahoo.com
emma [at] csli.Stanford.EDU Emma Pease
er_er_an [at] hotmail.com J Vuh
fbaker [at] ncsa.uiuc.edu Frank M. Baker
fed [at] millcomm.com Frank Druktainis
FG [at] hotmail.com FG
fgsoler [at] value.net Frank G. Soler
forumbahai [at] es.co.nz Steve Marshall
fran [at] crhc.uiuc.edu Frances Baker
gaillard [at] panix.com Ed Gaillard
gazissax [at] netcom.com Lynn Diana Gazis
gglaser [at] minn.net Ginger Glaser
ggw [at] wolves.durham.nc.us Gregory G. Woodbury
hmiddlem [at] cyberus.ca Harry T Middleman
hood [at] Eng.Sun.COM Mark Hood
house [at] usq.edu.au Ron House
IJF16 [at] student.canterbury.ac.nz Isaac Freeman
irina [at] rempt.xs4all.nl Irina Rempt
J.K.A.Singh-Rathore [at] ping.be J.K.A. Singh-Rathore
jaed [at] best.com Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
jake [at] netins.net R. "Jake" Jakoubek
james.farrar [at] ic.ac.uk James Farrar
jbh5 [at] cornell.edu Jean B. Hunter
jdg [at] but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com John David Galt
jeffd [at] goodnet.com Jeffrey J. Davey
jeffford [at] cs.utexas.edu Jeff Ford
jharnick [at] nornet.on.ca John A. Harnick
jkrobert [at] students.wisc.edu.nolongpig Jason Roberts
jmalina [at] wenet.net Jo Ann Malina
jolomo [at] netcom.com Joe Morris
jonathan [at] lionheart.net Jonathan Padgett
JoySafari [at] aol.com
jtbell [at] cs1.presby.edu Jon Bell
karromde [at] nyx.net Ken Arromdee
kebera [at] Cyblings.ON.CA Krishna E. Bera
keillan [at] quest.cc.purdue.edu Kelly G. Willis
kopetsbj [at] cs.purdue.edu Brett J. Kopetsky
kuch [at] ms.uky.edu John Allen Kuchenbrod
kyra [at] flash.net Debra Davies Huffman
lightspring [at] jps.net Thomas Spellman
maryam [at] netlink.com.au Maryam Butson
Massoud.Ajami [at] sdsu.eduDELETE Massoud Ajami
matt [at] mec.edu Matt Bancroft
mcgregoa [at] Cognos.COM Alayne McGregor
meflin [at] dimensional.com James S. Lopeman
michael [at] unicorn-connection.co.uk Michael Parry
mirele [at] super.zippo.com Deana M. Holmes
mtgalvin [at] ouray.cudenver.edu Michael-Teunis Galvin
mughal [at] alumni.caltech.edu Asim Mughal
neil [at] nkelley.demon.co.uk Neil Kelley
neilc [at] stanford.edu Neilist Crellin
obfusa [at] mack.rt66.com Franklin D. Schlatter Group Orthodox
olav [at] viking.mv.com Olav Nieuwejaar
[at] moa.net
philh [at] vision25.demon.co.uk Philip Hunt
PIERCEED [at] sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu Eric David Pierce
pjh1 [at] leicester.ac.uk Pete Humble
pjohnson [at] vsla.edu K. Paul Johnson
poul [at] earthling.net.NOSPAM.PLEASE Poul A. Costinsky
rdetweil [at] boi.hp.com Dick Detweiler
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
RK-esperantisto [at] juno.com Rick Koshko
roesingere [at] indy.tce.com Eric G Roesinger
romanc [at] rpi.edu Cesar C. Palerm
roxanamorgan11 [at] home.com Roxana Morgan
rreini [at] wwnet.net Roger Reini
rtower [at] yahoo.com Ron Tower
sas [at] frontiernet.net Stuart Schweid
simon [at] darkmere.gen.nz Simon Lyall
slavitch [at] loran.com Michael Slavitch
Tobias.Erle [at] GMX.net Tobias Erle
todd [at] nutria.nrlssc.navy.mil Todd Mullins
tommycarter [at] usa.net Tommy Carter
tricia [at] glonet.co.nz Tricia Hague-Blackford
Wayne_Sanders-Unrein_at_2-HTI-2VA [at] ccgate.hac.com Wayne Sanders-Unrein
whateverman [at] erols.com Jon Richt
wisanr [at] norwich.net Dick Wisan
WTobyL [at] aol.com Toby Lomax
wwfiv [at] ix.netcom.com William W. Farley IV
xanthian [at] well.com Kent Paul Dolan
znmeb [at] teleport.com M. Edward Borasky
zutetflute [at] aol.com Andree Maani
Voted No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid
andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew Pemberton-Pigott
babboo [at] writeme.com Peter Buchy
barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy
bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell
centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf Renkema
d [at] idiom.com d
David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David Robinson
djull [at] mindspring.com David Jull
dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai" Wolff
EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard Uthke
fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts
forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes Benning
Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias
globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon
gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier
Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson
hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis
hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank Fung
hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry House
hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman
iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai
jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor
jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim S. Jam
judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook
kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn
krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas
ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani
lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith
LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne Seamans
marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson
mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi
mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael Cook
mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer Locher
momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen
naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber
nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel Austin-Weeks
nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers
ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill
pan [at] syix.com Pan
patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti
persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer
petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook
pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler
ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas Polzer
red [at] rahul.net Red
riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga Junior
rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael Palmeiro
roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth
rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley
samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman
shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao
stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown
steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner
steve [at] Watt.COM Steve Watt
stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Donald Strong
Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte
talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael Anderson
tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson
todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches
wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill Maddox
wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L. Pagel
Abstained
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
af479 [at] rgfn.epcc.Edu Samandar Roshan-Zamir
biow [at] ezmort.com Christopher Biow
chris [at] kzim.com Christopher Robin Zimmerman
guymacon [at] deltanet.com Guy Macon
hkt [at] wwa.com Henrietta Thomas
johnn [at] jolt.mpx.com.au John New
kpascoe [at] ford.com Kathy Pascoe
NEW_DAWN [at] compuserve.com Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
rick [at] helix.nih.gov Rick Troxel
rpascoe [at] freenet.npiec.on.ca robert Pascoe
Votes in error
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fpbbgre [at] gnenanxv.np.am Scooter
! Invalid address
notarius [at] nym.alias.net Notarius
! Anonymous remailer
tom-hodges [at] geocities.com Tom Hodges
! No ballot
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 7:57 AM
To: bahai-st; talisman
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Guy Macon wrote in message <6cradk$lud$8@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Interesting...
>
>Here is my theory:
>There was some sort of effort to generate NO votes last time,
>that we did not detect, but there was no such effort this time.
Last time it was done on the BCCA lists and probably through
public denunciation at Bahai meetings and word of mouth....
This time, all mention of trb was again prohibited on
soc.religion.bahai, I was summarily denied the right to post
to the BCCA lists, though people who threatened me were allowed
to continue to do so.... The majority of the 65 NO voters were regular
posters to bahai-discuss.... 65 is indeed better than 691. I concede
some Bahais have learnt something about free speech and
conscience.... In that sense, I consider this a victory.... In so far as
the BCCA lists were used, I consider the Bahai administration
itself complicitous in this defeat....
>The NO vote campaign generated a bunch of YES votes.
>There never was enough interest for group passage.
109 is 100+.... 65 NO votes were still cast primarily for political
reasons by intolerant Bahai fundamentalists.... That should not
be lost sight of. They're not voting on technical reasons.
>We have met my primary goal; a fair vote.
I would have to say, a fairer vote.... but not a fair one. I do not
challenge the RESULT but I do disagree with most of the
interpretation of it thus far.... Much of the 157 could not
come back because they had no access to alt.religion.bahai
and therefore couldn't stay in touch to know a vote was under
way given any discussion of it was banned from
soc.religion.bahai, where they heard of it the first time. To
construe Bahais as innocent lambs here is quite mistaken....
Srb passed in 1992 236: 48.... There were many attempts
to constrict and undermine the scope of this proposal and
vote. They have again been successful....
>It would be interesting to see how many votes were unique to the
>last vote, how many were unique to this one, and how many were
>cast in both CFVs.
I agree. I would also think most of the NO voters would be
found on both lists....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Guy Macon wrote in message <6cradk$lud$8@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Interesting...
>
>Here is my theory:
>There was some sort of effort to generate NO votes last time,
>that we did not detect, but there was no such effort this time.
Last time it was done on the BCCA lists and probably through
public denunciation at Bahai meetings and word of mouth....
This time, all mention of trb was again prohibited on
soc.religion.bahai, I was summarily denied the right to post
to the BCCA lists, though people who threatened me were allowed
to continue to do so.... The majority of the 65 NO voters were regular
posters to bahai-discuss.... 65 is indeed better than 691. I concede
some Bahais have learnt something about free speech and
conscience.... In that sense, I consider this a victory.... In so far as
the BCCA lists were used, I consider the Bahai administration
itself complicitous in this defeat....
>The NO vote campaign generated a bunch of YES votes.
>There never was enough interest for group passage.
109 is 100+.... 65 NO votes were still cast primarily for political
reasons by intolerant Bahai fundamentalists.... That should not
be lost sight of. They're not voting on technical reasons.
>We have met my primary goal; a fair vote.
I would have to say, a fairer vote.... but not a fair one. I do not
challenge the RESULT but I do disagree with most of the
interpretation of it thus far.... Much of the 157 could not
come back because they had no access to alt.religion.bahai
and therefore couldn't stay in touch to know a vote was under
way given any discussion of it was banned from
soc.religion.bahai, where they heard of it the first time. To
construe Bahais as innocent lambs here is quite mistaken....
Srb passed in 1992 236: 48.... There were many attempts
to constrict and undermine the scope of this proposal and
vote. They have again been successful....
>It would be interesting to see how many votes were unique to the
>last vote, how many were unique to this one, and how many were
>cast in both CFVs.
I agree. I would also think most of the NO voters would be
found on both lists....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 8:04 AM
To: McKenny Michael
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Michael,
I'm a little befuddled by your comments below.... THEY constrained
interest at every point by shutting off access to srb and the BCCA
lists, as I see it! See my message on news.groups.
We're you able to email the YES voters?
I have marked August 23rd on my calendar....
FG
-----Original Message-----
From: McKenny Michael <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
>
>Greetings, Russ and all, from Ottawa.
> You are quite right.
> I am most impressed by the absence of those many NO votes.
> It looks as if any problems concerning freedom of speech in this
>context have been solved.
> You are also right that there appears to be insufficient interest
>in such a newsgroup.
> All the Best,
> Michael
>
>
>
>Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) writes:
>> Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu> writes:
>>
>>> As I recall, there were more than 150 YES votes last time around. If
>>> they had all returned and voted YES this time, the extra "sympathy"
>>> votes like mine probably would have made for a narrow success. But this
>>> time there weren't even enough YES votes to counter the usual
>>> "background level" NO votes.
>>
>> I think it's fairly clear that believers in the Baha'i faith didn't vote
>> against anyone because of their beliefs, at least this time around, and
>> that whatever problems there were with the first vote in that respect
have
>> been addressed.
>>
>> I'd personally like to thank the Baha'i community on Usenet for being as
>> reasonable and forthcoming as they have been in the face of what was
>> really quite a bit of abuse. It seems pretty clear that at this point
>> there simply aren't enough people interested in reading and participating
>> in an unmoderated group to warrant the creation of one.
>>
>> My opinion of the Baha'i faith in general has improved quite a bit over
>> the course of this RFD and CFV.
>>
>> --
>> Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
<URL:https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>
>
>
>--
>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>
----------
From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 4:56 PM
To: FG@hotmail.com
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu
Subject: a problem: a.r.b content
Hi Fred,
One thing that may have affected the vote outcome was that
a.r.b. seems to me to have been flooded with ravings of
marginal interest as Baha'i topics. I'd be interested to see
whether these stop now. If that was an example of what t.r.b.
would be like, I would have to say that it would not be a very
useful or interesting group. Is it too paranoid to think that
was its purpose? It seemed to get worse as time went on.
--Fran
----------
From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 10:57 AM
To: Baha'i Studies
Subject: Discussion of talk.religion.bahai
*The Baha'i Studies List*
Folks,
Another reminder: Some time ago, for various reasons (which
some of you probably remember), I called an end to
discussion of talk.religion.bahai on this list. When, after
a while, this topic was raised again here, I didn't say
anything. However, now that voting is over, and some people
are disappointed in the results, etc., I would again ask
that people do not bring this subject back to this list.
Respectfully, Mark Foster
-
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
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 7:28 AM
To: bahai-st
Subject: unsubscribe
Unsubscribe.
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 7:36 AM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: a problem: a.r.b content
Arb was much better during the summer. I and most other people
it seemed no longer had the energy to carry on two battles on
separate fronts and arb suffered a decline. You may be right
that it was orchestrated partly by the faithful opposition.
I'm seriously considering withdrawing from the bahai faith....
The deceit and intrigue has destroyed whatever small amount
of faith I had left.... It seems to me I should do it now before
things quite down and then I'm declared a cb.... I'm certain
the administration had to be involved in the BCCA attacks....
FG
-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu <fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 3:53 PM
Subject: a problem: a.r.b content
>
>Hi Fred,
>
>One thing that may have affected the vote outcome was that
>a.r.b. seems to me to have been flooded with ravings of
>marginal interest as Baha'i topics. I'd be interested to see
>whether these stop now. If that was an example of what t.r.b.
>would be like, I would have to say that it would not be a very
>useful or interesting group. Is it too paranoid to think that
>was its purpose? It seemed to get worse as time went on.
>
>--Fran
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
the Moum's wrote in message <34F2579A.31EF4753@inwave.com>...
>For the record, I have been a subscriber to Baha'i-Discuss for the last
>2+ years. I went through the list of NO voters, and found 11 names that
>I recognized from Baha'i Discuss, and not all of these are regular
>posters. Eleven is hardly a majority of 65.
I stand corrected. You are quite right. I've just had time to compare the
list of NO voters with my archive of bahai-discuss messages. I come
up with almost the same number.... On first glance, I went too much by
the recognition of numerous names who oppose free speech on
talisman or elsewhere or basically very fundamentalist in tendency....
It should be noted that Joseph Khoury voted NO for the second time,
as did 26 other individuals, and is secretary or whatever for the BCCA
and was involved in summarily depriving me of my right of access to
the BCCA lists....
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Johnny wrote in message <34F25050.E8DFE6D6@island.palmtree.com>...
>According to my un-scientific and hurried arithmatic based on the names
>only:
>
>of 157 who voted YES last time 25 voted YES this time and
>of 691 who voted NO last time 29 voted NO this time.
I've carefully counted 26 NO voters voting NO for the second
time. It looks as though your count of YES votes both times
is correct within your 10 percent margin of error. Actually,
I count only 20 YES votes appearing both times....
The good news would be many Bahais who voted NO the
first time either restrained themselves, understood the
nature of interest polling, or voted YES this time....
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Roger Reini wrote in message <34F1697C.36B3@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>The result is both disappointing and encouraging at the same time.
>Disappointing because it failed, but encouraging because there is hope
>that an improved proposal might succeed in the future.
I would suggest robomoderation of excessive (now don't laugh)
crossposting should be part of the next proposal in order to weed out
the spam and pornography and messages that go to several groups
with little relevance to arb or trb....
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Chris Manvell wrote in message <$RKBgHAtUf80Ew+o@breacais.demon.co.uk>...
>
>I would like to thank everyone who took an interest in this poll (yes, I
>prefer that word to "vote") and who participated both for and against. I
>would like, especially, to thank Fred for the idea of creating TRB and
>for trusting me enough to ask me to become co-proponent and to Ron for
>joining us. [clip]
I also would like to thank everyone who has contributed in anyway
whatsoever.
>I would also like to thank the news.groupies for their support and,
>almost, infinite patience when faced with netidiots like myself. And,
>last but not least, Rebecca for acting as volunteer vote taker.
Special thanks to all the news.groupies who have given much time
and effort to ensuring as much as possible a fair and honest
discussion and interest poll.... It was close and perhaps
talk.religion.bahai will pass next time....
>I've no doubt that there will be a further try to get TRB off the cyber-
>ground and maybe next time it will succeed.
I think all sides have learned a lot. I believe I have. Mark August 23rd
on the calendar....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34F2DDC2.D40@boi.hp.com>...
It seems to me a large number of Bahais have learnt not to oppose
or suppress others' opinions, perhaps yourself? I see that as making
headway. The next stage would I suppose be more active support,
demonstrated through their voting YES, for the rich tension and sparks
of truth Abdul-Baha approved of....
You may not agree with me on much or like me, Dick, but there's
no reason to continue the demonizing. If love and acceptance and
tolerance mean something to Bahais, I would think there would
be no need to continue trying to drive me off, as has so often been
done....
Let's bury the hatchet. How about your joining Chris, Ron, and
myself next time as a proponent? (He says as Chris and Ron perhaps
recoil in horror having had enough.)
You see, I don't really want to attack or destroy the Bahai faith;
I just want sufficient room within it to breathe and for the masses
perhaps to enter it.... Or to have the choice....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 3:57 PM
To: talisman
Subject: Re RESULT talk.religion.bahai 109: 65
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette <schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
[clip]
> The vote trend, overall, seems encouraging to continued efforts to
>evolve a new newsgroup, to continue consultation on it, and continue
>to understand and PROPERLY segment the sources of opposition and meet
>their arguments/objections with changes or superior logic.
I appreciate your sharing your point of view. I too am encourage by the
RESULTS. I find my faith slightly restored....
> The "everyone who opposes me is an intolerant fundamentalist" tack
>seems counter-productive. Better would be "Ok, much closer. Help me
>out here. What still needs to be changed to make this fly?"
Now, now, I've never said everyone.... Thank you for the advice. Bahais
have made progress and that's what counts.... And many did vote for
toleration and respect of others' opinions....
Sincerely, I consider it a victory for the Faith....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:16 PM
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Cc: talisman
Subject: Re: Deepest Appreciation and Best Wishes
From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
> I would like to express my deepest thanks to all those Baha'is
>who did not oppose the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai this time.
>By doing so they proved that there is freedom of thought and
>expression within Baha'i cyberspace.
Mmmm.... I can't quite go that far, but it is an improvement, one
I find heartening....
> No one has any legitimate ability to contradict that, and
>certainly not anyone who failed to take advantage of things this time
>round and vote for the newsgroup.
Not sure what you mean here in the first sentence. Hope I'm not
contradicting you.
> Inasmuch as one of the major reasons for my continuing to post
>in Baha'i cyberspace has been to uphold the principle of freedom of
>speech, inasmuch as hundreds of NO voters last time round have just
>upheld that principle and as I've other things to do, I'm quite
>delighted to get on to those other things.
I hope more than just this Bahai has learned from you a thing or two....
> I hope the new wind blowing continues to waft spring freshness
>over this section of humanity.
May the gods keep you. I think of Robert Hayden's lines from his "The
Year of the Child":
"May you walk
with beauty before you,
beauty behind you, all
around you, and
The Most Great Beauty keep
you His concern."
> May the future surpass our brightest dreams.
Given the past, broadly speaking, I have my doubts.... My own
spiritual struggles....
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:25 PM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights....
I wrote some days ago:
>What of the "equal human rights" of those who wanted
>talk.religion.bahai and voted YES last year? What of the human rights
>of covenant breakers, which the Writings also claim should be
>protected? HYPOCRISY Writ Large is all I see....
It seems to me I should admit that experience has provided a corrective.
There has been growth on these matters....
--
FG
----------
From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:44 PM
To: FG
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: a problem: a.r.b content
FG wrote:
>
> Arb was much better during the summer. I and most other people
> it seemed no longer had the energy to carry on two battles on
> separate fronts and arb suffered a decline. You may be right
> that it was orchestrated partly by the faithful opposition.
>
> I'm seriously considering withdrawing from the bahai faith....
> The deceit and intrigue has destroyed whatever small amount
> of faith I had left.... It seems to me I should do it now before
> things quite down and then I'm declared a cb.... I'm certain
> the administration had to be involved in the BCCA attacks....
>
> FG
>
Dear Fred,
While in some ways I would be happy to hear you had left the
Baha'i Faith, I know it means a lot to you and leaving would
represent a tragic loss. So, in that sense, I am sorry to hear you
are so dispirited. Good luck either way.
I think the choice that the Faith itself is facing is whether to go
on as a minor movement WITH or WITHOUT dignity. What I
mean is, the Faith taken as a whole (not just the "grand
ideas," which more or less lie in state most of the time),
is not going to seem true or appeal to very many people.
So, it can go on quietly and gently, setting a good example,
doing good, etc., or it can go on desperately trying to be more
than it can be (based on believability or appeal) through various
less-than-admirable expansion and regimentation tactics.
It is taking the latter road because it can't give up
its grandiose ambitions or view them with real patience. This is
too bad, but it was always a possibility (e.g., Baha'u'llah used
the CB idea as a method of control, if I am not mistaken,
and this idea alone reveals a deep authoritarian and intolerant
tendency at the heart of the religion).
Fortunately, the Baha'i judicial system is just a kangaroo
court with not real authority. Can I say "Thank God!"?
I hope that, if you do leave the Faith, you take some
joy in your freedom.
I think there should be a support group for ex-Baha'is
where they can laugh, cry, shout their opinions
very loudly, and generally recover from their bad
experiences! If I were founding this group, I would call
it "Pieces of You" for the song by Jewel about
the violence of intolerance toward those who embody, perhaps,
aspects of one's self that are threatening.
Best of luck in everything!
Fran
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34F33B86.DE1@boi.hp.com>...
>> You see, I don't really want to attack or destroy the Bahai faith;
>> I just want sufficient room within it to breathe and for the masses
>> perhaps to enter it.... Or to have the choice....
>
>I applaud that desire. I agree completely that the light of day
>is the best medicine against corruption and hypocricy. Look what
>has been accomplished in the last year - the Baha'i cyber community
>has matured a lot as attested by the two votes. Hopefully, many
>have learned not to blindly follow the bidding of someone - even
>someone they respect - without being apprised of all the facts (I
>am referring to the NO vote solicitation of the first vote).
I shan't mention....
Many
>have seen the value of an unmoderated forum, others a better
>understanding of Covenant breaking and what it does and does not
>mean. Many have a deepened understanding oh how they should handle
>these issues in cyber space. The Universal House of Justice
>considered the issues you raised and made a ruling all can look at
>and follow - not to mention one which, I think, is your best point
>of persuasion among Baha'is. All of this as a result of your
>unflagging efforts. Not bad, eh? :-)
You and others have helped....
>Looking down the road, to take this through to a completely successful
>conclusion will require a more "politic" handling of the proposal.
>Don't anger people you seek to persuade, assume the best rather than
>the worst in individuals, follow the rules - even if you know others
>are not. All of these things will help you gain the votes you
>seek, IMO.
>
>my .02,
>
>Dick D.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <34F35A6C.B2@pilot.msu.edu>...
>
>I think a proposal built around the idea that there is interest
>enough in discussing the Baha'i faith to justify a new unmoderated
>newsgroup - rather than there is a need for it because of
>"censorship" and "intolerance" - could generate more interest.
Does anyone recall my periodically posting numbers in the
THOUSANDS from dejanews? Bahais will have to agree to
allow trb to focus on the numbers; many would not permit this
approach the second time but ignored the other
two proponents and discussion of the numbers prefering
their hatred of me.... THE GREAT TRAITOR....
>For one thing, it rings more true and for another, it is certainly
>more inclusive (of people who don't see "censorship" etc.).
It's been tried. Dozens and dozens of times. Let's not ignore
that.... As though, oops, nobody noticed the THOUSANDS
of messages on alt.religion.bahai.... HUNDREDS of Bahais
posted to arb (513 different individual's by Detweiler's own
count up to October) and yet they had so little interest they
couldn't vote for trb....
>Beyond that, positive appeals generate energy (at least potentially)
>while negative appeals just deaden the spirit (unless there is a
>tangible ill involved), IMHO.
Pretending negative is positive is fatal in this electric world....
But your hearts in the right spot.... Donald, how about joining
the proponents too? Seriously....
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: META: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
5,956 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai as of this
morning.... Way back in October more than 500 different people
had already posted to arb. The number has surely only increased.
I doubt many alt.* groups have this kind of traffic....
Many Bahais use and post to arb, or lurk on it, but refused to
support it with a vote--that's how I read the RESULT....
The consensus last time was to vote NO; this time to shun it;
next time? Bahais need to understand it's in their own best
interest to support an unmoderated forum that others cannot
charge or feel is distorted through censorship and manipulation....
That would mark a logical path of maturation.
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings
Dale Grider wrote in message <34F3BDFA.25F9@bellsouth.net>...
[clip]
>In your letter you attempt to argue the possibility of the literal
>miraculous to avoid the observed double standard in Baha'i acceptance vs
>rejection of the miraculous.
You mentioned elsewhere this double standard. I think you're right.
It definitely exists in the Bahai writings....
> My apology if this seems long. But I must say that what often
>frustrates me more than folks being long winded, is when they make
>unsubstantiated blanket criticism against my alleged "faulty reasoning"
>without backing such criticism up with any specifics. If I disagree with
>your outlook I will be polite enough to let you know exactly why.
>Several of the posts current on the alt.Baha'i string entitled "Baha'i
>teachings" haven't been that courteous to me. It seems that they fail to
>include a reasoned explanation for their criticism because it is only an
>emotional response that really has no reasoned thought behind it. I can
>understand that, given human nature. But it does preclude the
>possibility of meaningful discussion.
The length of your posts have deterred me from reading all of
them even though I'm interested in your ideas and opinions.
Given the nature of this medium, I would find it helpful if you could
crystalize your thoughts in briefer form. I do believe you're right
about many Bahais just brushing you off with an emotional
response void of reasoned critique. I have often criticized such
an approach as have others.... Spoon feed us a little more....
FG
>
>God's Truth is one Truth,
>Dale
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: META: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Chris Stone wrote in message <01bd4174$817b5fc0$25c0c8c3@cstone>...
>I will preface this post by saying that I believe this vote was fair, and
that
>my comments below should in no way imply I am challenging the legitimacy of
>*this* particular result. Rather, I am raising some broader questions
about
>the institution of the CFV.
While I'm not challenging it, I don't really believe it was fair....
Prohibiting
discussion for a year on soc.religion.bahai, where most Bahais online
check in at least once in a while, and other such dirty tricks and tactics
are far from fair.... Using the BCCA to curtail every possible forum for
discussion under its control, srb being one of them, is not fair.... etc....
>Some of this vote's implications disturb me. The first time around, as I
>recall, we had approximately 160 YES votes, and the group would have passed
>handily without a "vote NO" campaign.
157 YES votes muzzled by 691 NOs....
>
>This time the same proposal gets 109 votes. By every reckoning it was a
>better proposal this time around, since several new proponents climbed on
>board. Additionally, this time around more news.groupies voted YES. (I
did
>not vote last time around; this time I voted YES. I do not think I was
>alone.) The number of votes reflecting pure interest in the newsgroup, and
>not politics, was thus probably below 109 -- let's say 100, as a ballpark
>figure.
It's close.... I thank all of you for your support for trb. Too many of the
earlier YES voters lost contact due to the alt.* hierarchy, more than
I had supposed....
>
>Why, after only six months, do we see 60 fewer YES votes on nearly an
>identical proposal?
You really have to factor in the religious side of the Bahai faith in this.
The Word went out, in one way or another, to SHUN the vote is my
reading of it; perhaps on and from the BCCA's lists, which would
explain why they wanted me off their lists--I wouldn't have stood for
such damnable tactics but would have exposed them immediately....
Does not such a result cast doubt upon the accuracy of
>the CFV as a predictor of interest? Can we seriously say that Usenet
readers
>were genuinely interested in Bahaism six months ago, but that they are no
>longer interested now?
5,956 posts to alt.religion.bahai since last April.... Lots of interest
there; perhaps too many people were overconfident that it would
pass and didn't bother to send in a vote....
>
>How many other newsgroups that passed in, say, 1995-97 would no longer meet
a
>given threshhold of YES votes?
>
>I have never believed the CFV even comes close to measuring interest on
>proposals; the outcome depends too much on variables such as skill at
>campaigning, timing of the vote, tip-toeing through news.groups, and so
forth.
> This result reinforces that belief.
I agree completely with all of the above.... I would be in favor of a
panel or committee establishing new groups on a more equatible basis;
time went against the proposal too--perhaps it was just too long--but I
saw no way around it given the constant attacks and attempts to
discredit the proposal or demonize me while dismissing every effort
I made to accomodate others' opinions in the RFD, include other
proponents, and so on.... I thought more time would help people cool
off and be reasonable. It helped perhaps in terms of the NOs but may
have lost a crucial 30 or 40 YES votes.
>
>I would also like to thank Rebecca for munging all the CFV addresses. It's
>good to see someone take the bull by the horns. ;)
I'd like to thank you Chris, and really all the news.groupies: Henrietta,
Guy Macon, Russ Allbery, Jonathan Stone, Ginger Glaser, Rebecca
McQuitty, Emma Pease--anyone else who's name doesn't immediately
come to mind--for all your help and support throughout this sometimes
tumultously process....
Sorry I've let you all down with another defeat.... I hope next time Bahais
will advance from shunning the NO vote to affirming the YES vote....
Almost time to sign off news.groups and head back to alt.religion.bahai....
Thanks again Jonathan for that....
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: META: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34F4384D.4045@boi.hp.com>...
>one thing that would be interesting to check is the YES votes that
>didn;t show up. I recall that along with the NO vote solicitation,
>there were also a few YES vote solicitations on Islamic oriented
>newsgroups the first time around. I didn't see this the second time
>so perhaps this could account for some of the difference?
I consistently watched for them too but never saw any either.... Most
of the Islamic votes last time were probably NO votes, in my
opinion, judging vaguely by names and domains.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34fa47f8.156652045@news.microserve.net>...
I wrote:
>>I would suggest robomoderation of excessive (now don't laugh)
>>crossposting should be part of the next proposal in order to weed out
>>the spam and pornography and messages that go to several groups
>>with little relevance to arb or trb....
>
>I see a flamefest in your future. Moderation in talk.* groups is
historically
>viewed as a Bad Thing [tm], and not without some justification.
Maybe I don't understand what it is. I thought it was merely a screening
out of commercial spam and pornography, not content or messages
from anyone otherwise.... I don't see that as moderation. If that can't be
done in the talk.* hierarchy, leaving discussion free and untouched by
interference, where? Or perhaps such robomoderation wouldn't work.
Soc.religion.quaker seems to clear that kind of thing out. How do they
do it? Guy, are you around at the moment?
>You'll probably hear more about this when you start the process again in 6
>months. A _lot_ more :)
I'm not looking for a fight over it, okay? I thought it was an innocent
idea that most Bahais would probably agree with.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Guy Macon wrote in message <6d38ul$su1$2@news01.deltanet.com>...
>First, what we *don't* do. We don't have any sort of moderation (either
>official or retro). We are the only unmoderated soc.religion.* newsgroup.
>We do go along with BI>20 spam cancelling, because that is a Usenet wide
>standard and not an option for individual unmoderated Usenet newsgroups.
Does that weed out the solicitations for pornography sites?
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
c'est moi wrote in message <6d1uk1$1i9@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <6cvpqi$cq0@news1.newsguy.com>, "Frederick says...
>>Does anyone recall my periodically posting numbers in the
>>THOUSANDS from dejanews?
>
>Sure. And what percentage were completely off-topic and/or spam? Why did
you
>include them in your count? All that did was artificially inflate your
numbers,
>making them not very pertinent.
Bahais repeatedly claimed the covenant breakers and maitreya postings
were both. I don't believe so. Both groups have, from their point of views,
genuine reasons for posting to a newsgroup on the Bahai faith. An
unmoderated newsgroup should allow for variety of opinion, even those
that many would not agree with, including myself.
>>Bahais will have to agree to
>>allow trb to focus on the numbers; many would not permit this
>>approach the second time but ignored the other
>>two proponents and discussion of the numbers prefering
>>their hatred of me.... THE GREAT TRAITOR....
>
>BS, Fred.... pure anadulterated BS.
I beg your pardon. You apparently did not follow the discussion in
full from September through February.... Bahais did continually
insist on my being the ONLY moderator despite strenuous efforts
on my part to include others and to focus on the traffic in
alt.religion.bahai. Among many Bahais, there is a pronounced
tendency to demonize people, noted by Juan Cole and others
during the discussion period.
>"allow trb to focus on the number"??? TRB DOESN'T EXIST!!!
Discussion of it....
>
>How did this supposed 'many' not 'permit' this? Were you 'censored' in
some
>way? Most of the critics to your behaviour/tactics were news.groupies,
which as
>far as I know is not a Baha'i group.
>
>You do a fine job 'demonizing' yourself, people don't need to do anything
more
>than observe your tactics to see what you're really about. Straight up -
you do
>and say many things that annoy people. And wonder of wonders, that does
*not*
>endear people to your 'cause', no matter how much you try to play the
martyr.
It is true that I am not good at tiptoeing nor concealing the indignation
I naturally feel at being censored. Neither did I take kindly the gand
warfare
tactics of the Bahais, much of which many techies were blind to having no
experience or knowledge....
>>>For one thing, it rings more true and for another, it is certainly
>>>more inclusive (of people who don't see "censorship" etc.).
>>
>>It's been tried. Dozens and dozens of times. Let's not ignore
>>that.... As though, oops, nobody noticed the THOUSANDS
>>of messages on alt.religion.bahai.... HUNDREDS of Bahais
>>posted to arb (513 different individual's by Detweiler's own
>>count up to October) and yet they had so little interest they
>>couldn't vote for trb....
>
>I don't know about any others, but over the past year I have posted under
>approximately twenty different names (anbody remember "The Lurker
Collective"
>post?). Who knows if anybody else has? Sorry Fred, but I wouldn't have
felt
>right sending in fraudulent votes. However... if that got you what you
wanted,
>I wonder if you'd even complain....
What's your real name?
>
>[and, from another message by Fred]
>>Many Bahais use and post to arb, or lurk on it, but refused to
>>support it with a vote--that's how I read the RESULT....
>
>So.... it's *not* that you wanted people to follow the Usenet voting
guidelines
>at all! You wanted absolute, undivided support for the newsgroup! That
is, you
>didn't want to give people the CHOICE to participate in the manner they
decide.
>
>Your logic is so flawed here it hurts. a.r.b DOES **NOT** EQUAL t.r.b!!!
I said so a thousand times but Bahais refused to listen, though some
progress has been made, perhaps.
>Does that mean ANYTHING to you? Just because someone posts, lurks, or even
>spams alt.religion.bahai doesn't mean that he/she MUST support
>talk.religion.bahai with a YES vote!
>
>I'd suggest you be careful over the next six months, Fred. I voted YES for
the
>newsgroup, but if you continue this idiotic behaviour, I may withdraw my
vote
>the next time around. You've been told time and time again what it will
take to
>gather support - are you willing and able to listen to this advice, or are
you
>going to shoot yourself in the foot AGAIN?
>
>>The consensus last time was to vote NO; this time to shun it;
>>next time? Bahais need to understand it's in their own best
>>interest to support an unmoderated forum that others cannot
>>charge or feel is distorted through censorship and manipulation....
>
>As long as one of the proponents keep making a mockery of the ideals he
purports
>to believe in, it'll never happen. Who's trying to say what others should
be
>saying/doing? YOU are! Who's attempting to manipulate what people do,
against
>their freedom of religious conscience and free speech? YOU are! Indeed,
you
>have been more a tyrant than anybody else involved in this matter.
>
>>That would mark a logical path of maturation.
>
>Oh, yes, 'maturation' equals agreeing with and supporting anything Fred
Glaysher
>proposes....
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 9:26 AM
Subject: Please post to alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc
For those Bahais and non-Bahais who have no access to
the alt.* hierarchy, I would like to ask anyone posting to
alt.religion.bahai to crosspost simultaneously their messages
to talk.religion.misc.
That would allow people to read the discussion that takes place
on alt.religion.bahai, and then they could also post back to
alt.religion.bahai by including it in their list of newsgroups for
crossposting.... This would allow most people to access
discussion that takes place on alt.religion.bahai via
talk.religion.misc....
I'm under the impression that most people are unaware
that this is one way around the limitations of the alt.*
hierarchy.
--
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Dale Grider Baha'i Teachings
Dale Grider wrote in message <34F6ACFE.66B2@bellsouth.net>...
The point made was well
>made in terms of Sharon's rationalizing to resuce the double standard.
You mention Sharon. Sharon Bouchard? I've seen no recent post by
her on my news servers feed. Is it failing to pass messages on from
her and perhaps others?
>But the tragedy of ruthless and violent persecution against people on
>religious grounds is not a joking matter, regardless of points to be
>made. Certainly there is no legitimate Christian stance that would fail
>to see the tragedy of such persecution.
>
>My sincerest apologies to any and all who may have been offended by my
>coupling a tragic injustice with sarcasm meant to address a different
>issue.
>
>In Christ,
>Dale
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dale Grider Baha'i Teachings & Christianity
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert A. Little <littlera@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Dale Grider Baha'i Teachings
>Mr. Grider:
>Dear Mr. Grider:
>
>I have read your posting (the one I am responding to) with considerable
>regret. Several weeks ago you entered this group, said you were a seeker
>after the truth of the claim that Baha'u'llah is in fact the Glory of God.
>You have entered into a dialogue with a number of people who have attempted
>to answer your oft repeated question. Today, in your response to Sharon you
>say such things as "Such a straw grasping argument to evade the point. .
.",
>and you repeat numerous times your opinion that there is a "double
>standard" utilized. I don't find mentioned a single statement, principal or
>belief with which you agree.
>
>Double standard means that you feel we are essentially liars, is that not
>so?
That's a very harsh way of putting it. He's never used the word. Why
should you? He has pointed out what appears to him to be a discrepancy
between fundamental approaches to experience in the Bahai Writings.
>
>On two prior occassions, I have asked you what I believe to be the only
>question that you should be concerned with, as a Christian: Is Baha'u'llah
>the Glory of God? This is the central, the only question.
I find your attempt to bully him distasteful.... The man's a Christian and
has
been forthright about it from the very beginning. Instead of listening to
his point of view, or permitting it a hearing, you seem to want to put him
on religious trial.... Your verdict is blatant.... And one Bahais should be
ashamed of....
If Baha'u'llah is,
>then your conclusions concerning a "double standard" would need to be
>reexamined. If Baha'u'llah is not who He says He is, then you, as a
>Christian, have your instructions, from Christ Himself, to avoid yet
another
>"false Christ".
>
>What do you think, Dale? No. . . what do you believe?
>
>With Baha'i Love,
How can you even write that?
>
>Robert A. Little
>
>Dale Grider wrote in >
>
>(delete)
>
>>Such a straw grasping argument to evade the point observed in the double
>>standard observed in Baha'i relation of Science to religion is beyond
>>desperate.
>
>
--
FG
Usenet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Ron House wrote in message <34F656DE.65CF5D3F@usq.edu.au>...
>
>I would like to insert a word here about this view of Fred.
>I remember one post that Fred made shortly after the CFV,
>which I suspect is THE chief post that has annoyed non-Baha'is.
>I read that post with a great deal of interest, and found
>a lot of highly informative stuff in it, but on re-reading
>it and trying to forget what I knew about the background,
>I found it sounded divisive and troublemaking. It was easy
>to see how others might take the whole wrong impression
>from it, and in that sense was a most unfortunate failure
>of communication. I would suggest to Fred to try harder
>to not misread people's intentions - not every opponent
>is malicious; and to others I would say: remember that
>there were causes for Fred's irritations; no-one can
>be twice-shy until they have been bitten once.
Thanks, Ron.
People who haven't experienced the Bahai Faith have a
hard time understanding how pervasive the problem is.
That's often baffled me. My reposts from Juan Cole, for
instance, I suppose you allude to.... I genuinely thought
they would provide background from which non-Bahais
could begin to get a wider view of the general censorship
issue in the Bahai Faith. The reaction instead was quite
surprising.... To someone with some experience of the
Bahai Faith, such as yourself, or me, they ring like a bell....
You are right to point out to me that not every one is
malicious.... A shortcoming in my nature perhaps....
Also perhaps too often I find Shakespeare's general
evaluation of the human being the only credible one....
Betrayal and treachery....
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Ron House wrote in message <34F65404.7B1382EF@usq.edu.au>...
>my concern with this latest vote has
>nothing to do with illegitimate votes either way, but rather
>to do with the Baha'i faith. In the first vote on TRB, there
>WAS a conspiracy by Baha'is to vote it down - I proved that
>with more certainty than the average murder conviction carries.
>
>But this time there was not. My concern is with the gutlessness
>of a religion whose founder promises victory by His pen, and
>whose followers have so little faith in that pen that they
>aren't champing at the bit to CREATE a forum like TRB. I
>believe the Baha'is have demonstrated their almost complete
>alienation from the principles of their founder, and I'll
>be having more to say about that in an appropriate forum.
Ron, remember you can reach alt.religion.bahai by posting
both to it and talk.religion.misc--back there in the dungeon
of the alt.* hierarchy, we shall be able to read your words,
while our responses can reach you via trm....
Others too might want to note this method of getting around
the limitations of the alt.* hierachy....
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65
Roger Borseth wrote in message <34F5D452.C4F46285@mci2000.com>...
>You have your opinion I have mine but you would deny me the right to
>vote my conscience. As long as the name of the group carries reference
>to the Baha'i Faith I see it as a signpost inviting people to a meeting
>place were they can learn about the Faith. Unless it can be shown to be
>a place that I would feel free to invite my neighbor to I will continue
>to vote against it.
A place where your neighbor only hears your opinions not those of
any other Bahais or non-Bahais?
>By Freds insistence on the numbers in ARB I have used the kind of post
>there as a criteria to base my vote. There just have not been enough
>Baha'is posting there to make it a viable place to talk intelligently
>about the Baha'i Faith without a lot of irrelevant noise. In other words
>not a place I would invite my neighbors to, no mater were in the world
>these neighbors lived.
Over 5,800 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai since
last April.... That's an indisputable fact anyone can verify on
dejanews.com.
You, and Bahais who apparently share your views, think that is "irrelevant
noise." I've never called others' opinions that.... Or "idiotic," as another
critic has recently said.... I don't care to live in a closed and sanitized
neighborhood, thank you just the same....
>
>Peace and Unity
If fear your conception, held by many Bahais, of these
words frightens me....
>Roger
>
>Jason Roberts wrote:
>>
>> In article <34F19687.3B5C@boi.hp.com>, Dick Detweiler
>> <rdetweil@boi.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > Waitaminutethere Jason. Roger admitted to looking over all the info
>> > available and I know he took part in the discussion and then he
>> > voted his conscience. I did the same. We came to different
>> > conclusions and voted differently. What is wrong with that? Isn't
>> > that what the voting franchise is all about? People will have
>> > different opinions. I thought we weren't supposed to be automatons
>> > about things. In reality, Baha'is DO respect differing opinions
>> > and I think that is reflected in the vote. Many Baha'is on both
>> > sides of the issue. And that is perfectly OK as long as the opinions
>> > expressed are informed - don't you think?
>>
>> I think the only things that should be taken into consideration in Usenet
>> voting are technical factors. Any other 'no' vote is censorship, imo.
>>
>>
>> > Dick D.
>>
>> -JR
>>
>> --
>> "I am fluent in over 12 million forms of communication!" - C3PO
FG
Usenet: alt.religion.bahai
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:49 PM
To: Rebecca G. McQuitty
Subject: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons.... 13 people
have never posted to Usenet at all....
I'm cc this to Rebecca McQuitty in the hope that she might be able
to disqualify some of these votes. It is at least interesting to consider
how arbitrary and unfair the defeat of trb was.... 109 votes do
constitute 100+.
Why should 30, 40, or so votes from people who really don't give a
damn be allowed to defeat not only this proposal but others?
--
FG
------------
X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people
B = Bahai; 20 people
SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai
---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com.
techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology
or technical subject matter
BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and
Communications Assn's bahai-discuss
number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com
Voted No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir
Majid
X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
Buchy techy
B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney"
Kennedy 4 hits
B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
Mitchell 8 hits
centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
Renkema techy
d [at] idiom.com
d techy
---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David
Robinson 0 hits
---- djull [at] mindspring.com
David Jull 0 hits
dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai"
Wolff esparantoist
B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T.
Jonsson
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard
Uthke techy
B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
Dean Betts
forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes
Benning 2 hit
X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
Macias
X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick
Jobidon 1 hit
B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
Poirier BCCA
X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
Sorenson BCCA
X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D.
Curtis 1 hit
hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank
Fung trains & techy
---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry
House 0 hits
B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
moderator? BCCA
X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
Iskandar Hai
X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine
Taylor Pagan
---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim
S. Jam 0 hits
X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A
Rook 1 hit
X kimdv [at] best.com Kim
DeVaughn 0 hits
X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net
Phil Thomas 0 hits
X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian
milani
X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry
Smith techy
X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne
Seamans techy
---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus
Davidson 0 hits
B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael
Cook techy, 2 hits
mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer
Locher 2 hits
X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan
Momen
X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian
Weisgerber techy
---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel
Austin-Weeks 0 hits
X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas
Myers 0 hits
B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann
O'Neill 2 hits
pan [at] syix.com
Pan Pagan
X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J.
LoPresti techy
B persia [at] persia.com Robert
Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
X petcook [at] total.net Peter
Cook 0 hits
X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
Watler SRB
X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
BCCA secretary, 0 hits
---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas
Polzer 0 hits
red [at] rahul.net
Red alt.politics.white-power
---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga
Junior 0 hits
rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael
Palmeiro 1 hit
B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
Borseth BCCA
SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
Deeley techy
B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
Hyman SRB moderator?
X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre
Mansouri 0 hits
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha
Rao Hindu?
X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight
Brown non-Bahai?
X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason
Steiner Christian?
steve [at] Watt.COM Steve
Watt techy
---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Donald Strong techy 0 hits
B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
Marie Witte 6 hits
---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael
Anderson 0 hits
X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C.
Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan
X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd
Kutches 0 hits
wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill
Maddox Freemasonry
wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L.
Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:49 PM
Subject: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons.... 13 people
have never posted to Usenet at all....
I'm cc this to Rebecca McQuitty in the hope that she might be able
to disqualify some of these votes. It is at least interesting to consider
how arbitrary and unfair the defeat of trb was.... 109 votes do
constitute 100+.
Why should 30, 40, or so votes from people who really don't give a
damn be allowed to defeat not only this proposal but others?
--
FG
------------
X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people
B = Bahai; 20 people
SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai
---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com.
techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology
or technical subject matter
BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and
Communications Assn's bahai-discuss
number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com
Voted No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir
Majid
X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
Buchy techy
B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney"
Kennedy 4 hits
B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
Mitchell 8 hits
centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
Renkema techy
d [at] idiom.com
d techy
---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David
Robinson 0 hits
---- djull [at] mindspring.com
David Jull 0 hits
dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai"
Wolff esparantoist
B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T.
Jonsson
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard
Uthke techy
B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
Dean Betts
forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes
Benning 2 hit
X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
Macias
X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick
Jobidon 1 hit
B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
Poirier BCCA
X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
Sorenson BCCA
X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D.
Curtis 1 hit
hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank
Fung trains & techy
---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry
House 0 hits
B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
moderator? BCCA
X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
Iskandar Hai
X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine
Taylor Pagan
---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim
S. Jam 0 hits
X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A
Rook 1 hit
X kimdv [at] best.com Kim
DeVaughn 0 hits
X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net
Phil Thomas 0 hits
X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian
milani
X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry
Smith techy
X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne
Seamans techy
---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus
Davidson 0 hits
B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael
Cook techy, 2 hits
mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer
Locher 2 hits
X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan
Momen
X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian
Weisgerber techy
---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel
Austin-Weeks 0 hits
X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas
Myers 0 hits
B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann
O'Neill 2 hits
pan [at] syix.com
Pan Pagan
X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J.
LoPresti techy
B persia [at] persia.com Robert
Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
X petcook [at] total.net Peter
Cook 0 hits
X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
Watler SRB
X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
BCCA secretary, 0 hits
---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas
Polzer 0 hits
red [at] rahul.net
Red alt.politics.white-power
---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga
Junior 0 hits
rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael
Palmeiro 1 hit
B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
Borseth BCCA
SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
Deeley techy
B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
Hyman SRB moderator?
X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre
Mansouri 0 hits
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha
Rao Hindu?
X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight
Brown non-Bahai?
X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason
Steiner Christian?
steve [at] Watt.COM Steve
Watt techy
---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Donald Strong techy 0 hits
B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
Marie Witte 6 hits
---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael
Anderson 0 hits
X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C.
Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan
X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd
Kutches 0 hits
wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill
Maddox Freemasonry
wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L.
Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:02 PM
To: talisman
Subject: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
FYI
FG
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 1:49 PM
Subject: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
>It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
>defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
>with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
>voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons.... 13 people
>have never posted to Usenet at all....
>
>I'm cc this to Rebecca McQuitty in the hope that she might be able
>to disqualify some of these votes. It is at least interesting to consider
>how arbitrary and unfair the defeat of trb was.... 109 votes do
>constitute 100+.
>
>Why should 30, 40, or so votes from people who really don't give a
>damn be allowed to defeat not only this proposal but others?
>
>--
>FG
>
>------------
>X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people
>B = Bahai; 20 people
>SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai
> ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com.
>
>techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology
>or technical subject matter
>
>BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and
>Communications Assn's bahai-discuss
>
>number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com
>
>
> Voted No
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>--
>X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir
>Majid
>X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
>Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
> babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
>Buchy techy
>B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney"
>Kennedy 4 hits
>B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
>Mitchell 8 hits
> centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
>Renkema techy
> d [at] idiom.com
>d techy
>---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David
>Robinson 0 hits
>---- djull [at] mindspring.com
>David Jull 0 hits
> dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai"
>Wolff esparantoist
>B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T.
>Jonsson
> Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard
>Uthke techy
>B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
>Dean Betts
> forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes
>Benning 2 hit
>X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
>Macias
>X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick
>Jobidon 1 hit
>B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
>Poirier BCCA
>X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
>Sorenson BCCA
>X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D.
>Curtis 1 hit
> hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank
>Fung trains & techy
>---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com
Harry
>House 0 hits
>B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
>moderator? BCCA
>X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
>Iskandar Hai
>X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine
>Taylor Pagan
>---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim
>S. Jam 0 hits
>X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A
>Rook 1 hit
>X kimdv [at] best.com Kim
>DeVaughn 0 hits
>X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net
>Phil Thomas 0 hits
>X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian
>milani
>X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry
>Smith techy
>X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne
>Seamans techy
>---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus
>Davidson 0 hits
>B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
>Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
> mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael
>Cook techy, 2 hits
> mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer
>Locher 2 hits
>X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan
>Momen
>X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian
>Weisgerber techy
>---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel
>Austin-Weeks 0 hits
>X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas
>Myers 0 hits
>B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie
Ann
>O'Neill 2 hits
> pan [at] syix.com
>Pan Pagan
>X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J.
>LoPresti techy
>B persia [at] persia.com Robert
>Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
>X petcook [at] total.net Peter
>Cook 0 hits
>X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
>Watler SRB
>X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
>BCCA secretary, 0 hits
>---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas
>Polzer 0 hits
> red [at] rahul.net
>Red alt.politics.white-power
>---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga
>Junior 0 hits
> rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael
>Palmeiro 1 hit
>B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
>Borseth BCCA
>SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
>Deeley techy
>B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
>Hyman SRB moderator?
>X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre
>Mansouri 0 hits
> shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha
>Rao Hindu?
>X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight
>Brown non-Bahai?
>X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason
>Steiner Christian?
> steve [at] Watt.COM Steve
>Watt techy
>---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>Donald Strong techy 0 hits
>B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
>Marie Witte 6 hits
>---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael
>Anderson 0 hits
>X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C.
>Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan
>X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com
Todd
>Kutches 0 hits
> wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill
>Maddox Freemasonry
> wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L.
>Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits
>
>
>
>
----------
From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 11:28 PM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
FG <FG@hotmail.com> wrote
>>It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
>>defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
>>with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
>>voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons...
On the contrary -- the 65 votes was in the ballpark one might expect
on any widely debated USENET vote on almost any subject. That's life
in the USENET universe, for better or worse.
What I see is that a third of the people who voted YES the first time,
after six months of observation of A.R.B. and much public discussion,
did not vote YES on the second vote. If those 157 votes had simply
persisted, and added only 10 more votes, TRB would have succeeded.
In any case, you can complain to the vote-takers all you like, but the
reality is that, to get this group formed, more YES voters are going to
be needed, and that means understanding why the appeal is so low.
Wade
----------
From: Suzanne Gerstner[SMTP:gerstner@bart.nl]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 7:29 AM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
Dear Frederick,
The phrase which comes to my mind is radiant acquiesence. The vote was
taken, and the answer was no. This was the second time. I think it's time
to move on to other subjects. Are there aspects of this glorious Faith
which interest you? Please share them. The time is short and there's much
real teaching to be done.
Suzanne Gerstner
The Hague, The Netherlands
"How good it is if the friends be as close as sheaves of light,
if they stand together in a firm unbroken line."
'Abdul-Baha
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:49 PM
Subject: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
>It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
>defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
>with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
>voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons.... 13 people
>have never posted to Usenet at all....
>
>I'm cc this to Rebecca McQuitty in the hope that she might be able
>to disqualify some of these votes. It is at least interesting to consider
>how arbitrary and unfair the defeat of trb was.... 109 votes do
>constitute 100+.
>
>Why should 30, 40, or so votes from people who really don't give a
>damn be allowed to defeat not only this proposal but others?
>
>--
>FG
>
>------------
>X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people
>B = Bahai; 20 people
>SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai
> ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com.
>
>techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology
>or technical subject matter
>
>BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and
>Communications Assn's bahai-discuss
>
>number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com
>
>
> Voted No
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>--
>X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir
>Majid
>X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
>Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
> babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
>Buchy techy
>B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney"
>Kennedy 4 hits
>B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
>Mitchell 8 hits
> centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
>Renkema techy
> d [at] idiom.com
>d techy
>---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David
>Robinson 0 hits
>---- djull [at] mindspring.com
>David Jull 0 hits
> dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai"
>Wolff esparantoist
>B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T.
>Jonsson
> Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard
>Uthke techy
>B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
>Dean Betts
> forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes
>Benning 2 hit
>X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
>Macias
>X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick
>Jobidon 1 hit
>B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
>Poirier BCCA
>X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
>Sorenson BCCA
>X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D.
>Curtis 1 hit
> hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank
>Fung trains & techy
>---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com
Harry
>House 0 hits
>B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
>moderator? BCCA
>X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
>Iskandar Hai
>X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine
>Taylor Pagan
>---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim
>S. Jam 0 hits
>X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A
>Rook 1 hit
>X kimdv [at] best.com Kim
>DeVaughn 0 hits
>X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net
>Phil Thomas 0 hits
>X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian
>milani
>X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry
>Smith techy
>X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne
>Seamans techy
>---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus
>Davidson 0 hits
>B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
>Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
> mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael
>Cook techy, 2 hits
> mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer
>Locher 2 hits
>X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan
>Momen
>X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian
>Weisgerber techy
>---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel
>Austin-Weeks 0 hits
>X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas
>Myers 0 hits
>B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie
Ann
>O'Neill 2 hits
> pan [at] syix.com
>Pan Pagan
>X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J.
>LoPresti techy
>B persia [at] persia.com Robert
>Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
>X petcook [at] total.net Peter
>Cook 0 hits
>X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
>Watler SRB
>X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury
>BCCA secretary, 0 hits
>---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas
>Polzer 0 hits
> red [at] rahul.net
>Red alt.politics.white-power
>---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga
>Junior 0 hits
> rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael
>Palmeiro 1 hit
>B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
>Borseth BCCA
>SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
>Deeley techy
>B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
>Hyman SRB moderator?
>X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre
>Mansouri 0 hits
> shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha
>Rao Hindu?
>X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight
>Brown non-Bahai?
>X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason
>Steiner Christian?
> steve [at] Watt.COM Steve
>Watt techy
>---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>Donald Strong techy 0 hits
>B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
>Marie Witte 6 hits
>---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael
>Anderson 0 hits
>X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C.
>Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan
>X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com
Todd
>Kutches 0 hits
> wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill
>Maddox Freemasonry
> wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L.
>Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34fb961f.451416538@news.microserve.net>...
>The vote is over. Your proposal failed. Votes cannot, and _should_ not_, be
>disqualified because of past posting history, motivation to vote , hair
>color, religion or propensity to belch after a large meal.
I agree the vote is over. I accepted the RESULT and haven't really
attempted to challenged it. I have looked closely at the NO votes
because I think I and other proponents and people interested in
maintaining a fair system on Usenet might learn something from
it.
I for one am extremely surprised that only 20 Bahais voted NO.
That's real progress due to my and others' efforts.... I am also
surprised that so many people voted at all who really have no
interested whatsoever in the subject or proposal--just for the
hell of it, apparently.... These are observations worth making
in preparation for the next vote....
I'm also surprised that so few people came back--or, I
should say, since I believe it, lost touch as a result of SRB's
banning all discussion and other Bahai efforts to limit
discussion about the interest poll.
>
>Just how long are you going to keep this up?
You're phrasing baffles me a little. Keep what up? I believe
learning from the RESULT by giving it a close reading is
valuable. That's all. Such a reading doesn't say much in my
opinion for the effectiveness of Usenet interest polling. And
again it's that broad perspective that I'm trying to share with
you and other techies....
>--
>Dave Ratcliffe
>dave@frackit.com
FG
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 8:36 AM
To: talisman
Cc: Suzanne Gerstner
Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
>Dear Frederick,
>
>The phrase which comes to my mind is radiant acquiesence. The vote was
>taken, and the answer was no. This was the second time. I think it's time
>to move on to other subjects. Are there aspects of this glorious Faith
>which interest you? Please share them. The time is short and there's much
>real teaching to be done.
Where would I share them where there aren't Bahai fanatics given to
persecution and torture?
>Suzanne Gerstner
>The Hague, The Netherlands
>
>"How good it is if the friends be as close as sheaves of light,
>if they stand together in a firm unbroken line."
>
>'Abdul-Baha
The Twenty Bahai Inquisitors:
>>X,B abir [at] comtrol.com
Abir
>>Majid
>>X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
>>Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
>> babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
>>B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
>>Mitchell 8 hits
>> centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
>>B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard
T.
>>Jonsson
>>B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
>>Dean Betts
>>X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
>>Macias
>>B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
>>Poirier BCCA
>>X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
>>Sorenson BCCA
>>B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
>>moderator? BCCA
>>X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
>>Iskandar Hai
>>B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
>>Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
>>X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk
Moojan
>>Momen
>>B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie
>Ann
>>B persia [at] persia.com Robert
>>Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
>>X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
>>Watler SRB
>>X,B,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph
Khoury
>>BCCA secretary, 0 hits
>>B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
>>Borseth BCCA
>>SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
>>B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
>>Hyman SRB moderator?
>>B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
>>Marie Witte 6 hits
----------
From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 8:44 AM
To: Cheryll & Wade Schuette
Cc: talisman
Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
> FG <FG@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being
>>>defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people
>>>with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably
>>>voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons...
>
>On the contrary -- the 65 votes was in the ballpark one might expect
>on any widely debated USENET vote on almost any subject. That's life
>in the USENET universe, for better or worse.
Yes, it is in the Usenet ballpark.... Was it calculated by Bahais
through using bahai-discuss to be just the right number? I'm not
sure anything can be ruled out....
>
>What I see is that a third of the people who voted YES the first time,
>after six months of observation of A.R.B. and much public discussion,
>did not vote YES on the second vote. If those 157 votes had simply
>persisted, and added only 10 more votes, TRB would have succeeded.
Well, many or most of them came originally I believe from discussion
on soc.religion.bahai, which banned all discussion of the proposal
a year ago in order to defeat it. They've succeeded again. The BCCA
is also complicitous in this 2nd defeat, as it was in the first.... In so
far as the BCCA is part of the administration, I believe it's open to
question whether or not the UHJ supported its efforts to blackball and
defeat talk.religion.bahai....
>
>In any case, you can complain to the vote-takers all you like, but the
>reality is that, to get this group formed, more YES voters are going to
>be needed, and that means understanding why the appeal is so low.
I'm not complaining in the sense of challenging the RESULT. It's much
closer this time, and I'm willing to hope it shows progress and deeper
thought on the part of Bahais about free speech and conscience. Given
the distortions imposed by SRB and the BCCA on discussion, I don't
believe an accurate appraisal can be made that leaves their interference
out of the balance....
>Wade
FG
----------
From: Dean Betts[SMTP:fdbetts@mindspring.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 11:30 AM
To: FG
Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai
Why don't you relax?
At 07:36 AM 2/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dear Frederick,
>>
>>The phrase which comes to my mind is radiant acquiesence. The vote was
>>taken, and the answer was no. This was the second time. I think it's time
>>to move on to other subjects. Are there aspects of this glorious Faith
>>which interest you? Please share them. The time is short and there's much
>>real teaching to be done.
>
>Where would I share them where there aren't Bahai fanatics given to
>persecution and torture?
>
>
>>Suzanne Gerstner
>>The Hague, The Netherlands
>>
>>"How good it is if the friends be as close as sheaves of light,
>>if they stand together in a firm unbroken line."
>>
>>'Abdul-Baha
>
>
>The Twenty Bahai Inquisitors:
>
>>>X,B abir [at] comtrol.com
>Abir
>>>Majid
>
>
>>>X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew
>>>Pemberton-Pigott BCCA
>>> babboo [at] writeme.com Peter
>
>
>>>B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby
>>>Mitchell 8 hits
>>> centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf
>
>>>B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard
>T.
>>>Jonsson
>
>>>B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com
>>>Dean Betts
>
>>>X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley
>>>Macias
>
>>>B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent
>>>Poirier BCCA
>
>>>X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham
>>>Sorenson BCCA
>
>>>B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB
>>>moderator? BCCA
>
>>>X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu
>>>Iskandar Hai
>
>>>B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar
>>>Badii-Azandahi 3 hits
>
>>>X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk
>Moojan
>>>Momen
>
>>>B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie
>>Ann
>
>>>B persia [at] persia.com Robert
>>>Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits
>
>>>X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel
>>>Watler SRB
>
>>>X,B,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph
>Khoury
>>>BCCA secretary, 0 hits
>
>>>B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger
>>>Borseth BCCA
>
>>>SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross
>
>>>B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C.
>>>Hyman SRB moderator?
>
>>>B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday
>>>Marie Witte 6 hits
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the
Lord of all the worlds.
- Baha'u'llah
****************************************************************************
|