From: CC Secretary[SMTP:bcca-cc@bcca.org] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: CC Mail Subject: Baha'i Discuss Dear Mr Glaysher The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct you to desist where that is not the case. Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. In His service Nick Sanders Nicholas J A Sanders _______________________ Secretary BCCA Co-ordinating Committee ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 8:43 AM To: Bahai Studies; CC Secretary; Bahai Discuss Subject: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of action. During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable procedures of UseNet interest polling. I Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite similar to the character assassination practiced on soc.religion.bahai. I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and pseudo-religious reasons. I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion listserv to support such activities. As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to form talk.religion.bahai? Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, the God-given right of others to express their own religious conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been presented to the group-mentors for their advice. I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais from doing so. I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: "This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom." Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- > From: CC Secretary > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: CC Mail > Subject: Baha'i Discuss > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > > First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > you to desist where that is not the case. > > Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > > We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > > Nicholas J A Sanders > _______________________ > Secretary > BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > Appended message follows: ---------------------------------------- From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think > that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is logical to assume so. > It is not. > Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > pleasant place. That's what we discovered. > On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > So I guess it's > not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is bound to suffer. > I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups that affect the public image of the Faith. The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed supervision. 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our image when operated by someone out of control. We should worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a more visible newsgroup. John ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:30 AM To: Nicholas Sanders Cc: Bahai Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai I'm concerned that this morning I find Bahai-Discuss is being used for a campaign against me personally by someone pretending to be me and posting from bahai@hotmail.com. I request that your committee officially denounce this abusive activity clearly calculated to inflame passions against my person and against talk.religion.bahai, before the proper period of discussion has even begun. I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you under separate posting. I await patiently your answer to my previous communication. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:34 AM To: BCCA CC Cc: CC Secretary Subject: Fw: hate mail#1 Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- > From: Nancy S Damren > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages from > you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, 1997. > > I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and > inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send word > that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of > Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing in > such a fashion. > > Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, regardless > of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith has > cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many others. > > You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I must > request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in the > future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will > result in notification of both my email service and yours of your email > abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. > > You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from an > Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. This > threat is real. > > Nancy Damren ---------- From: Nicholas Sanders[SMTP:semiotek@post8.tele.dk] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 12:34 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: CC Mail Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr Glaysher Thank you for your post which is receiving our attention. I note from your earlier message that you "await patiently [our] answer" - may I presume to try that patience a little further by asking that you refrain from any further postings on this matter, either to "Baha'i Discuss" or "talk.religion.bahai"? I am confident that your doing so will help to reduce the heat generated by this issue and thus facilitate its speedier resolution. By all means advise the Committee of any further mail which you receive about it: indeed I hope that you will, but I prefer that you post to in future as this will ensure your message gets treated promply as incoming correspondence to the Coordinating Committee. Please accept our apologies for the continued delay in finding a way through this difficulty. I am sure that you can readily appreciate that it has become increasingly complex, not least because there are now posts circulating which purport to be sent by you but which, if we understand correctly, you say are not yours. In order that we might be assisted towards clarification, can you confirm whether the post entitled "Open Letter: UHJ (Universal House of Justice)" and dated "1997/03/31" was actually from you or not. Thank you for your continuing assistance. In His service Nicholas Sanders ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ In a message logged 30/09/97 13:30 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I'm concerned that this morning I find Bahai-Discuss is being >used for a campaign against me personally by someone >pretending to be me and posting from bahai@hotmail.com. > >I request that your committee officially denounce this >abusive activity clearly calculated to inflame passions against >my person and against talk.religion.bahai, before the proper >period of discussion has even begun. > >I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, >one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you >under separate posting. > >I await patiently your answer to my previous communication. > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 6:36 AM To: Nicholas Sanders Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai ---------- > From: Nicholas Sanders > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: CC Mail > Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai > Date: Thursday, October 02, 1997 12:34 AM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > Thank you for your post which is receiving our attention. I note from > your earlier message that you "await patiently [our] answer" - may I > presume to try that patience a little further by asking that you refrain > from any further postings on this matter, either to "Baha'i Discuss" or > "talk.religion.bahai"? I am confident that your doing so will help to > reduce the heat generated by this issue and thus facilitate its speedier > resolution. I'd prefer your not taking advantage of my patience.... Talk.religion.bahai does not exist; you mean alt.religion.bahai. Although you might notice, I have not been involved in generating the "heat." You seem quite incorrectly to be blaming the victim. I remain very concerned about the demonizing character assassination that has and is taking place on b-d. I would like a response from you as soon as possible as well as your taking positive and effective action there to ensure b-d is not used to undermine UseNet voting procedure and to attack and threaten the way Nancy Damren has done. I also request at this time that you email her directly and obtain an apology or clear statement from her that she has not done or is about to do something rash in regard to my personal safety and that of my family. > > By all means advise the Committee of any further mail which you receive > about it: indeed I hope that you will, but I prefer that you post to > in future as this will ensure your message gets > treated promply as incoming correspondence to the Coordinating Committee. This is the email address that I have in my address book. > > Please accept our apologies for the continued delay in finding a way > through this difficulty. I am sure that you can readily appreciate that > it has become increasingly complex, not least because there are now posts > circulating which purport to be sent by you but which, if we understand > correctly, you say are not yours. In order that we might be assisted > towards clarification, can you confirm whether the post entitled "Open > Letter: UHJ (Universal House of Justice)" and dated "1997/03/31" was > actually from you or not. I do not agree. What I wrote six months ago is irrelevant to the threat I have received. In my opinion, you are failing your duties as a Coordinating Committee by not responding promptly to the disgraceful uses Bahai-Discuss is being put to by many Bahais on it. The issue is not whether I wrote the reposted message in question. It is whether such low and contemptible tactics are acceptable on Bahai-Discuss and in the context of a UseNet interest poll for both Bahais and non-Bahais. I assure you I did not repost any of the messages from "bahai@hotmail.com." The motives of that individual are clearly to inflame animosity against me and alt/talk.religion.bahai. Have you emailed bahai@hotmail.com? > > Thank you for your continuing assistance. I find your failure as a committee to act promptly and responsibly in this matter quite shameful.... > > In His service > > Nicholas Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 30/09/97 13:30 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >I'm concerned that this morning I find Bahai-Discuss is being > >used for a campaign against me personally by someone > >pretending to be me and posting from bahai@hotmail.com. > > > >I request that your committee officially denounce this > >abusive activity clearly calculated to inflame passions against > >my person and against talk.religion.bahai, before the proper > >period of discussion has even begun. > > > >I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, > >one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you > >under separate posting. > > > >I await patiently your answer to my previous communication. > > > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- ---------- From: Joseph Khoury[SMTP:joseph@bounty.bcca.org] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 12:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.com Subject: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions > I don't want to subscribe but unsubscribe from BINS, Tech, > Bahai-singles, Helping, Homeschool, Teachers, Race Unity, and Readings. > I'd appreciate it if you could make > sure I'm off them. My email address for receiving them is > > fglaysh@hotmail.com > > Dear Frederick Glaysher, You have been removed from the above mentioned mailing lists (you must have been getting about five zillion messages per day!); you are still subscribed to the following lists: Announce;BCF;Discuss;Youth If this is not what you want, please let us know! Joseph Khoury (just one of the BCCA Lists Managers) ---------- From: Bahai Lists Manager[SMTP:janet@Bounty.BCCA.Org] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:10 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Pointers to RFD: TRB: (Re: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions) You may post to any list whether or not you are a member. On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:09:06 -0400 > From: FG > To: Baha'i Request > Subject: Pointers to RFD: TRB: (Re: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions) > > I'd like to post the pointer to the RFD for talk.religion.bahai to the > following lists, > which I subscribed to a few weeks ago.... I know I'm no longer > subscribed to some of them. Perhaps I should resubscribe and then post but > it seems such a waste of your time, if not mine.... I have individually > emailed > in a pointer for each one, they should be around there already somewhere, > but > am concerned they'll bounce. I forgot I had unsubscribed from some of > them.... > Would you be willing to post the RFD to them anyway, or should I > resubscribe? > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > news.announce.newgroups, or at > > ---------- > > From: Joseph Khoury > > To: Frederick Glaysher > > Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.com > > Subject: BCCA Mailing Lists subscriptions > > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 12:58 PM > > > > > I don't want to subscribe but unsubscribe from BINS, Tech, > > > Bahai-singles, Helping, Homeschool, Teachers, Race Unity, and Readings. > > > > I'd appreciate it if you could make > > > sure I'm off them. My email address for receiving them is > > > > > > fglaysh@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > Dear Frederick Glaysher, > > > > You have been removed from the above mentioned mailing lists (you must > > have been getting about five zillion messages per day!); you are still > > subscribed to the following lists: > > Announce;BCF;Discuss;Youth > > > > If this is not what you want, please let us know! > > > > Joseph Khoury > > (just one of the BCCA Lists Managers) > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From - Tue Oct 28 07:59:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Oct 28 03:53:32 1997 Received: (qmail 19058 invoked from network); 28 Oct 1997 11:53:30 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 1997 11:53:30 -0000 Message-ID: <3455D23E.105C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:53:34 -0500 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC Secretary Subject: Re: Message from the BCCA Co-ordinating Committee References: <19971028051737.AAA17360@[194.239.189.7]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4740 CC Secretary wrote: > > To Mr Frederick Glaysher > > Dear Baha'i Friend > > In response to your message of October 2, 1997, addressed to the > Secretary of the BCCA Coordinating Committee, please know that the > Committee is indeed concerned about the issues you have raised as well as > the tenor of the correspondence received from you. > > Baha'i Discuss is an unmoderated forum, for Baha'is in good standing > only, designed to promote exchanges on the various topics of current > interest. This forum is not moderated and discussions thereon are granted > a certain largess. However, all participants are expected to follow the > general rules of decent Baha'i conduct. > > In your case, there seem to be four particular issues: > > - a letter allegedly written by you to the Universal House of > Justice whose tone and tenor seemed to us harsh and, indeed, overtly > critical of that Institution. Apparently this letter was posted openly > and its text may therefore be seen as forming the basis of some of the > subsequent messages addressed to you by members of the Baha'i Discuss > forum. Therefore, for the the Committee is to be able to handle > effectively your plaints, it is important to know whether or not it was > sent by you and whether or not it was in fact forwarded on to the > Universal House of Justice; I'm appalled at your response above.... That letter was reposted by a shamelessly deceitful Bahai who was attempted to enflame the issue. Your comments only support such disgraceful tactics. > > - you state that some postings to Baha'i Discuss in your name were, > in fact, not posted by you. This is a very serious allegation and copies > of all such postings should send them to us. If you have made any effort > to identify their source(s), please share your findings with us; Some bastard of a Bahai hiding behind a psuedonym, bahai@hotmail.com, posted them.... It was openly discussed on bd, if you weren't listening, or chose not to. Incidentally, I have no respect whatsoever for you as a "committee." > > - you assert that Baha'i Discuss is being used to subvert Usenet > voting procedures and request that we prevent postings with such an > intent. However, since the Committee presently has no direct monitoring > facility, it simply is not possible at this time to block any > inappropriate postings; It's clear you and Mark Towfiq support such treachery.... He's on your "committee," isn't he? > > - it appears that you may have been posting to one or more Usenet > groups messages you have received via Baha'i Discuss. As a matter of > general nettiquette, it is cannot be considered proper to repost messages > one has received without the explicit consent of the sender As a matter of general netiquette, marshalling NO votes and using private email lists to do so is disapproved of too.... I wrote your illustrious committee immediately upon being threatened by a Bahai fanatic on Bahai-discuss, you did nothing about it, and now have the gall to send me this contemptible "letter." - comments > meant for one forum or for one individual may not be at all appropriate > for posting to another forum and, in this case, messages posted on Baha'i > Discuss are intended for Baha'is only and framed in the context of the > conventions of the Faith. False. Framed in lies, deceit, fanaticism reminiscent of the worst screaming mobs in the streets of Tehran..... Therefore, they may be highly particularly > inappropriate for other fora, especially for non-Baha'is. As you know, > Baha'is use terms and expressions that have a certain meaning in the > context of the Faith, but, if read by non-Baha'is, may be easily > misconstrued; By others who don't share their lies, deceit, and fanaticism....? > > In conclusion, we must answer your finding the failure of the Committee > "to act promptly and responsibly in this matter quite shameful." While > one may indeed want immediate reactions to one's own situation, sometimes > this is just not possible. and the Committee is doing its best to deal > with the complaints you have lodged. The matter has become quite > contentious but please be assured that it has been taken very seriously. Your actions belie your assertions.... Don't bother me again with your ignorant banalities.... > > Sincerely > > In His service > > Nicholas J A Sanders > _______________________ > Secretary > BCCA Co-ordinating Committee -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: CC Secretary[SMTP:bcca-cc@bcca.org] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 2:31 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: CC Mail Subject: Message from the BCCA-CC Mr Glaysher I write to advise you that the following message has been mailed to BCCA lists today. On behalf of the BCCA-CC Nicholas J A Sanders ------------------- Dear Baha'i Friends The Co-ordinating Committee of the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association regrets to announce that Mr Frederick Glaysher has been unsubscribed from all of the BCCA lists which included his name and email address and that steps have been taken to prevent his posting to any forum for which we have responsibility. We wish to make it quite clear that this action follows from Mr Glaysher's persistent contravention of the conditions of the BCCA Charter and our decision should not be taken as indicating any stance on the question of his proposal for a new Usenet group. It has been made only after our several attempts to settle difficulties amicably with Mr Glaysher have produced no positive result. The Committee now urges all the believers who participate in online Baha'i activities to focus their attention on the urgent needs of the time and to renew their efforts towards successful completion of the Four-Year Plan. We earnestly hope that the acrimonious exchanges of past weeks will now be forgotten and that there will be no repeat of them. (Please note that this message is being posted to several BCCA lists - we apologise for any multiple receipts.) In His service Nicholas Sanders Nicholas J A Sanders _______________________ Secretary BCCA Co-ordinating Committee ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 4:06 PM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: kicked off BCCA message Subject: Message from the BCCA-CC Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 19:31:00 +0100 From: CC Secretary To: "Frederick Glaysher" CC: "CC Mail" Mr Glaysher I write to advise you that the following message has been mailed to BCCA lists today. On behalf of the BCCA-CC Nicholas J A Sanders ------------------- Dear Baha'i Friends The Co-ordinating Committee of the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association regrets to announce that Mr Frederick Glaysher has been unsubscribed from all of the BCCA lists which included his name and email address and that steps have been taken to prevent his posting to any forum for which we have responsibility. We wish to make it quite clear that this action follows from Mr Glaysher's persistent contravention of the conditions of the BCCA Charter and our decision should not be taken as indicating any stance on the question of his proposal for a new Usenet group. It has been made only after our several attempts to settle difficulties amicably with Mr Glaysher have produced no positive result. The Committee now urges all the believers who participate in online Baha'i activities to focus their attention on the urgent needs of the time and to renew their efforts towards successful completion of the Four-Year Plan. We earnestly hope that the acrimonious exchanges of past weeks will now be forgotten and that there will be no repeat of them. (Please note that this message is being posted to several BCCA lists - we apologise for any multiple receipts.) In His service Nicholas Sanders Nicholas J A Sanders _______________________ Secretary BCCA Co-ordinating Committee -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at