Danger! Splasher at work!
Paul Hammond
from the all-new, all-reformed "errol" that I saw this morning
when I went on to Beliefnet.
That new leaf lasted all of about 5 days, didn't it errol?
---Begin repost---
Challenge against the hypocricy of the Bahai principle of
*eradication of prejudice*
Dear B/net posters,
Below is the evidence of the (maybe) ignorance of the UK NSA, when
they were duped by American Baha'is Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck into
thinking that TRB, ARB and SCI were Baha'i run newsgroups.
Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck know rightly Fredrick Glaysher (who runs
TRB and ARB is not a member of the Baha'i faith) and his e/mail
address ***** Bahai Faith *****
Also why did Kishan Manocha (UK NSA) order George Fleming off
(soc.culture.iranian) when this open unmoderated newsgroup has no
connection to the Baha'i Faith?
Does readers not agree these three Baha'is Kishan Manocha (UK NSA) Pat
Kohli and Susan Maneck (TRB, and ARB posters) overstepped their marks
when they proceeded to try and get one of their members censored from
posting to these non-Baha'i sponsored newsgroups using Baha'i
jurisprudence when they should have used other non-baha'i methods if
they were unhappy with his presence.
Finally, would posters to TRB , ARB and SCI not agree, that these
Baha'is who belong to a religion which proudly presents one its
religious principals as the *eradication of prejudice* done there
utmost damdest to discriminate against George Fleming (A member of
their Faith at that time) to have him eradicated from TRB, ARB and SCI
without any prior consultation or any Baha'i court proceedings.
Errol
From: Kishan Manocha
Reply-To:
To: "'george.fleming2'"
Date: WednesdayOctober 6301020022002 3:27 pm
Subject: RE: Your email letter of 21 October 2002
30 October 2002
Dear George
Thank you for your email.
The National Spiritual Assembly considers it imperative that you meet
with
me as soon as possible. It is for the National Assembly to decide
whether
to accept your resignation from the Faith and, in order to do this, it
has
asked for this meeting. It is the National Assembly's strong hope that
you
will agree to this.
By way of clarification, please note that the National Assembly has
asked
you to refrain from posting messages on the ARB, TRB and SCI
e-discussion
lists. It also asks you to not post on Baha'i-run unmoderated
e-discussion
groups. Of course, you are free to contribute to any unmoderated
e-list
which is not Baha'i-run or sponsored.
The National Spiritual Assembly sincerely hopes that we can work
together to
find a way forward out of the current situation.
Best wishes
Kishan
----
errol9
for giving it a second airing................Errol
in article c977f97b.03031...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 15/3/03 3:25 pm:
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 15/3/03 3:25 pm:
> Just for the information of the parties mentioned, here is a post
> from the all-new, all-reformed "errol" that I saw this morning
> when I went on to Beliefnet.
>
> That new leaf lasted all of about 5 days, didn't it errol?
My retraction was over nasty words against personalities on TRB. This is a
challenge against the institutions of the Baha'i Faith. Namely a ketter from
the UK NSA.
As you have never been a member of the Baha'i Faith you can be excused for
your ignorance....................Errol
Cal E. Rollins
letting them know what he feels to be the problem? Often those that
feel aggrieved spin their wheels in the mud at the bottom where it
doesn't do much good. People causing the problems recognize those not
to mess with and generally don't. --Cal
Raoul
> Just for the information of the parties mentioned, here is a post
> from the all-new, all-reformed "errol" that I saw this morning
> when I went on to Beliefnet.
>
Paul, please can you clarify... do you agree with censorship in principle or
is it just that you don't like what this one individual is saying?
Raoul
Susan Maneck
>Paul, please can you clarify... do you agree with censorship in principle or
>is it just that you don't like what this one individual is saying?
Dear Raoul,
I think what he is saying is that while George made a big show of apologizing
and turning over a new leaf, he has now gone back to doing the same thing over
again.
warmest, Susan
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 12:37 am:
It is obvious Dr Maneck does not understand the difference between personal
namecalling, and nasty insults to challenge and critque of the instutions of
the religion she belongs to. She and other BIGS on TRB are back to their
"Poisoning the Well" tricks again.
Description of Poisoning the Well
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
(many thanks to Raoul for this website)..............Errol
Paul Hammond
errol,
we can all see what it is, your cant about me being "too late"
because this post to Beliefnet is a copy of one you made
months ago to trb notwithstanding.
All you have done is changed a few of the words, and started
to pretend that, somehow, "errol" is not "George".
Nevertheless, bad faith is bad faith, and you play that game
in spades.
There is no excuse for your ignorance.
Paul
Paul Hammond
What I dislike is a person being two-faced, Raoul.
Posting retractions and apologies in one place, while
reposting shafts from earlier rounds in the war in another
place, where he knows that the subjects of his wrath do
not read.
Over here, "Errol" would have us believe that he is trying
to put the past behind him. On beliefnet, he is reliving
it, trying to make his vendetta against Pat Kholi and
Susan Maneck into some kind of general criticism of
"Baha'i hypocrisy".
You remember when you first came here, "Errol" was accusing
you of being me under another name, ribbing me by saying that
I was playing Mornington Crescent with myself?
This was, if memory serves, a very short while before
"Errol" started to do his impersonations of myself,
wearing a dress and saying "Hello Sailor" at Baha'i
meetings. Maybe he suggested that idea to himself?
You may have chosen to find "Errol's" capers in this
newsgroup amusing, but after being exposed to his games
for several months now, I don't appear to have much
humour or tolerance left where "Errol" is concerned.
Paul
errol9
> All you have done is changed a few of the words, and started
> to pretend that, somehow, "errol" is not "George".
Paul
Everyone knows Errol is ~George Fleming" I posted a public post to both TRB
and B/net explaining this. "george Fleming" is my Artist/Authors name and
was also my Baha'i name. Errol is my new internet identity. I was given
advice to change my identity on the internet for security reasons on these
open newsgroups. I tried a few other alias before settling with errol9.
If you have trouble accepting this then I cant force you. Likewise I cant
force you to accept my retraction to you over any nasty words I said to you.
But from now on I wont be crossing swords with you, and if you are still
blinkered with bad feelings towards me I would kindly request to try and
understand Cal's advice here................Errol
errol9
> On beliefnet, he is reliving it, trying to make his vendetta against Pat
> Kholi and Susan Maneck into some kind of general criticism of
> "Baha'i hypocrisy".
Because Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck's name is on an NSA letter I received
surely I am allowed to discuss it on the "Challenge & Critique" thread of
B/Net . You are only angry Paul because the host would not delete this
thread at your request.
Now you are trying another angle a "Poisioning the well" against me all
because I wish to challenge the institutions of the Baha'i Faith.
Errol
Raoul
>
> You may have chosen to find "Errol's" capers in this
> newsgroup amusing, but after being exposed to his games
> for several months now, I don't appear to have much
> humour or tolerance left where "Errol" is concerned.
>
Yet you still interact with him. Makes me think you must be getting
something out of it.
Also, you didn't answer my original question. Errol published a letter form
the UK NSA instructing him to leave certain unmoderated Usenet groups on
pain of some unspecified further action. Do you agree with this line?
Doesn't it amount to an attempt at censorship?
Raoul
Susan Maneck
>the UK NSA instructing him to leave certain unmoderated Usenet groups on
>pain of some unspecified further action. Do you agree with this line?
>Doesn't it amount to an attempt at censorship?
Dear Raoul,
No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves have. They
operate under certain charters which participants are obliged to follow.
Baha'is also have certain obligations. George didn't keep to any of them.
I don't think anyone would have objected to what George was saying if he simply
said it once. But the fact of the matter was he was spamming not only the
newsgroups but NSAs, sometimes sending them a 150 messages in a day. He was
also spamming newspapers insinuating that Nima was a terrorist. Surely you can
see that engaging in this kind of activity in the name of the Faith is a little
more than problematic?
There are and always have been limits to free speech. Harrassment is one of
them. Libel is another. George was doing both.
warmest, Susan
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 1:39 pm:
>> Errol published a letter form
>> the UK NSA instructing him to leave certain unmoderated Usenet groups on
>> pain of some unspecified further action. Do you agree with this line?
>> Doesn't it amount to an attempt at censorship?
>
> Dear Raoul,
>
> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves have.> They
> operate under certain charters which participants are obliged to follow.
Produce evidence of other unmoderated newsgroup "censorship" by another
organisation outside that which first formed the group?
> Baha'is also have certain obligations. George didn't keep to any of them.
What authority have you got to tell any Baha'i what their obligations are.
Since when were you elected as the Baha'i Guardian of the internet?
> I don't think anyone would have objected to what George was saying if he
> simply said it once. But the fact of the matter was he was spamming not only
> the newsgroups but NSAs, sometimes sending them a 150 messages in a day.
I sent many e/mails to both NSA's as they were unfair in their judgement of
only one baha'i, when others like Susan maneck and Pat Kohli were the first
to break Baha'i rules by failing to contact their own NSA first. However
this does not give the intitutions the authority to order one baha'i off TRB
and not others who were also breached internet and Baha'i laws.
> He was also spamming newspapers insinuating that Nima was a terrorist. Surely
> you can see that engaging in this kind of activity in the name of the Faith is
> a little more than problematic?
Nima complemented me on sending his (taking the mick) post (claiming he was
a new manifestation saying heated words against UHJ members) Susan Maneck
was worried about the backlash on the baha'i Faith in Australia if Nima's
post was ever published. She certainly was not interested in Nima's
wellbeing as he is one of her worst enemies.
>
> There are and always have been limits to free speech. Harrassment is one of
> them. Libel is another. George was doing both. warmest, Susan
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
I was also harrassed by both Baha'is and non-Baha'is alike. Feeding the
Dermod Ryder and my flame war by fundi BIGS (even when Dermod and I eased
off) was all part of their little game of Poisoning the well against both
Dermod and myself, while they sat back and played the three monkey's act.
errol
errol9
>> Errol published a letter form
>> the UK NSA instructing him to leave certain unmoderated Usenet groups on
>> pain of some unspecified further action. Do you agree with this line?
>> Doesn't it amount to an attempt at censorship?
>
> Dear Raoul,
>
> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves have. They
> operate under certain charters which participants are obliged to follow.
> Baha'is also have certain obligations. George didn't keep to any of them.
Dear Raoul,
I have done more to help Propagate equality and Religious Pluralism which
includes the Baha'i Faith over the past ten years than Susan Maneck Pat
Kohli or any other BIGS on TRB ever knew about.
Here is an example of a recent thread started on Interfaith Belief/net.
Notice I do have good interaction with other Baha'is. Even as a non-baha'i I
bear no long term grudge against the Baha'i Faith just because of a few
funamentalist cranks here on TRB.
PS: Notice even the Baha'i barmack who I had words with over the (petrol
bomb) post has come in to befriend me, yet here on TRB I am Susan Maneck's
devil incarnate.............................Errol
errol9
3/8/03 8:00 AM 1 out of 9
Religious Pluralism verses Religious singularism
Greetings to spirtual santuary a website full of connections to many
religions practised in the US How many of us feel a warm feeling towards all
these religions or do some of them give us a cold feeling . How many of us
involved in interfaith are only involved to propagate our own brand of
religion or do we believe interfaith is to propagate religious freedom for
all and indeed religious pluralisim and not religious singularism?
errol9
http://www.thespiritualsanctuary.org/Index.html
Bahai
Buddhism
Causes/Charities
Christianity
Confucianism
Eckankar
Hinduism
HolyDays/Celebrations
Humanism/Atheism
Islam
Jainism (coming soon)
Judaism
Native American
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Unitarian Universalism
Wicca/Paganism
Zoroastrianism (coming soon)
Inspirations
Interfaith/Interspirituality
African Religions (coming soon)
Faiths of Indigenous Peoples (coming soon)
On World Peace
arthra999
3/8/03 10:58 AM 2 out of 9
I liked that site Errol...and the art work on the Baha'i site by George
Fleming was good too.
- Art
errol9
3/8/03 11:21 AM 3 out of 9
Thank you art,
Yes it is a real professional site which has only been established lately.
They used one of my paintings for the Baha'i section. I believe the other
religious sites are still being worked on.
http://www.thespiritualsanctuary.org/Bahai/Bahai.html
Here is the website were many other paintings can be viewed in a series of
canvases called "All Gods Children" of other inter faith world religions.I
painted back in 1995/6. The interfaith forum in the city I lived in
supported this exibition when it went on tour .
http://www.warble.com/BahaiArtGallery/HTML/GeorgeFleming/Artist.html
George Fleming is my artist/author's name and errol9 is my beliefnet
identity.
errol9
errol9
bkusha
3/8/03 11:21 PM 4 out of 9
Errol9, I like your art very much too. It's great!
errol9
3/9/03 5:50 AM 5 out of 9
thankyou bkusha,
Any one wish to use one of the paintings for any interfaith website or
written religious article are very welcome to use them.to bring colour their
text.
errol9
arthra999
3/9/03 11:31 AM 6 out of 9
Hey Errol... Those paintings are really great and I think much appreciated!
I think art unites the hearts while sometimes the thinking mind gets muddled
down...
I dabble in pastels and water colors and do it more as therapy for myself...
It feels great and you learn a talent...
I'd like to use some of those paintings on some of the Baha'i Yahoo groups
I'm in if it is agreeable with you...
- Art
errol9
3/9/03 4:52 PM 7 out of 9
Art ,
You are most welcome as are those from other religious groups who wish to
use them . All I request is you credit my name on them. Another interfaith
guy has made a game board out of them to help teach children all about the
different world religions .
Unfortunately those who scanned the series missed out the paintings on
Sikhism and Jainism.
Errol
arthra999
3/9/03 7:10 PM 8 out of 9
Well thanks Errol and I'll certainly credit them and indicate the source...
I really admire the contributions made by Jainism myself and think we could
learn a lot from their ideas particularly for conflict resolution.
- Art
bkusha
3/9/03 11:14 PM 9 out of 9
Dear Errol9,
Thank you for giving permission to use your art (with attribution, of
course!).
Paul Hammond
Raoul,
I think that it was totally the UK NSA's business that some idiot
calling himself a Baha'i was running rampant all over
t.r.b, saying that he was a "better Baha'i" than Pat
or Susan, because he "got down to Nima's level", and talked
to us "covenant-breakers" on a level we would understand.
He dared the group to get in touch with his NSA (that
he had just been telling us Baha'is had to obey
implicitly). He told Pat that if he did do so,
they would just tell him off for not being as good
at defending the faith as George.
After they wrote to him telling him to cool it, he
eventually decided that he needed to resign, because
spamming people was more important to him than being
a Baha'i. Pat and Susan became his main targets.
He spammed copies of his messages to Susan's place
of work, several newspapers in the general area that
Pat lives, several random American universities,
a few Baha'i official addresses.
After he got cross with me for contradicting his
fantasies with the facts, he started adding me to his
spam list, and threatened to "keep posting" to my
inbox, and all these other places (see list
above), if I wouldn't shut up and leave him
alone.
Then came his impersonation of me.
Then he posts Dermod's address on the net.
Splasher is a serial internet abuser.
Getting him to behave himself is *not* a "freedom
of speech" or "censorship" issue. It is a matter of
common decency, which is in short supply for George.
Does that answer your question?
Paul
Paul Hammond
George,
You don't understand what "poisoning the well" means.
Although I think it is true that everything you say is
unreliable, I am not using attacking your character as
a substitute for argument.
If you tell a lie, and I actually post the statements
from you that tell the truth, that is an answer to
the argument, not a digression or a fallacy.
In future, you are talking to yourself, okay?
Paul
errol9
in article c977f97b.03031...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 16/3/03 3:47 pm:
Paul Hammond
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious.
---
This is true.
However, what is happening here is.
1) Person A claims statement X is a true representation of
the facts.
2) Person B posts evidence showing statement X to be false
- this evidence consisting of past posts by that person
which undermine his false claims.
The fact that showing up statement X to be a lie proves
that person A is a liar is incidental to the case.
Therefore, contradicting your continual lying in this
group does not fall under that heading.
Paul
errol9
I thought you were puting me in your plonk tank. What haoppened did you take
cold feet?.........................Errol
errol9
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA998DA7.17AD9%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article 20030315193744...@mb-mu.aol.com, Susan Maneck at
>> sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 12:37 am:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul, please can you clarify... do you agree with censorship in principle
>>>> or
>>>> is it just that you don't like what this one individual is saying?
>>>
>>> Dear Raoul,
>>>
>>> I think what he is saying is that while George made a big show of
>>> apologizing
>>> and turning over a new leaf, he has now gone back to doing the same thing
>>> over
>>> again.
>>>
>>> warmest, Susan
>>
>> It is obvious Dr Maneck does not understand the difference between personal
>> namecalling, and nasty insults to challenge and critque of the instutions of
>> the religion she belongs to. She and other BIGS on TRB are back to their
>> "Poisoning the Well" tricks again.
>>
>> Description of Poisoning the Well
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
>>
>> (many thanks to Raoul for this website)..............Errol
>
> 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
> 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
>
> This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious.
When am I going in your plonk tank, the suspense of waiting is here the
"Plonk" come is so exciting................Errol
Raoul
>> Errol published a letter form
>> the UK NSA instructing him to leave certain unmoderated Usenet
>> groups on
>> pain of some unspecified further action. Do you agree with this line?
>> Doesn't it amount to an attempt at censorship?
>
> Dear Raoul,
>
> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves
> have.
What kind of 'censorship' is that then?
> They operate under certain charters which participants are
> obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
> didn't keep to any of them.
I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident Baha'is
will be leaned on by their NSAs.
> I don't think anyone would have objected to what George was saying if
> he simply said it once. But the fact of the matter was he was
> spamming not only the newsgroups but NSAs, sometimes sending them a
> 150 messages in a day. He was also spamming newspapers insinuating
> that Nima was a terrorist. Surely you can see that engaging in this
> kind of activity in the name of the Faith is a little more than
> problematic?
As Errol has pointed out himself, spam is an ISP issue. But as for
complaining, I wouldn't bother. There are loads of ISPs here, and being
banned from one of them would only be a minor inconvenience. You never know,
you might force the spammer to resort to an anonymous remailer, and then
you're really screwed.
>
> There are and always have been limits to free speech. Harrassment is
> one of them. Libel is another. George was doing both.
>
If that was libel, I can't wait for it to come to trial:
"Well, it's like this, Your Honour... this feckin' eedjit on the Internet
called me a 'waster' and I want you to sort him out."
Raoul
Susan Maneck
>> namecalling, and nasty insults to challenge and critque of the instutions
>of
>> the religion she belongs to
It is obvious that you don't know the difference between libel and critique.
You accused Pat and I of deceiving the Institutions regarding the nature of
ARB, TRB, and SCI. Pat Kohli sent the NSA a copy of the TRB charter which makes
quite clear the nature of the list.
So as Paul says, you're lying.
Susan Maneck
>> Because Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck's name is on an NSA letter I received
>> surely I am allowed to discuss it on the "Challenge & Critique"
Our name is on that letter because the NSA told you to stop sending us private
emails (i.e. harrassing spamming.) That has nothing to do with your fantasy
about what we told the NSA regarding the nature of the three lists in question.
Pat sent them the charter. That is all they were told, period.
>> Now you are trying another angle a "Poisioning the well" against me all
>> because I wish to challenge the institutions of the Baha'i Faith.
Au contraire. You are arguing that the NSA was simply misinformed. It is Pat
and I who you are attacking.
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 4:47 pm:
Never mind bringing Paul into this, can you not speak for yourself. Paul was
never a Baha'i and furthermore as has been stated. There is nothing in the
charter which says Baha'is who do not come up to your's or Pat Kohli's
expectations as a pood baha'i can be lneaned on by their respective NSA's.
Show me the evidence, otherwise you are only getting yourself into deeper
and deeper water here by telling more untruths and by exposing the Baha'i
Faith of imposing censorship where they have no legal right to do so.
After all This was the very reason why Frederick Glaysher fought long and
hard to get an unmoderated newsgroup like TRB launched so as no one could be
ordered off. His own experiences of being ejected from the moderated SRB
(soc.religion.baha'i) were his catalyst to fight for an unmoderated group.
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Errol
Susan Maneck
>> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves
>> have.
>
>What kind of 'censorship' is that then?
Dear Raoul,
Whatever is in the charter of the newsgroup in question. The charter for TRB
includes the following:
"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 relevant to the Baha'i Faith is
prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam,
and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are
prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not
HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged.
Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive
cross-posting."
>> They operate under certain charters which participants are
>> obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
>> didn't keep to any of them.
>
>I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident Baha'is
>will be leaned on by their NSAs.
I didn't say our obligations as Baha'is were identical to the charter of this
newsgroup. I said both have their rules which they expect participants to abide
by. And since participation in both the newsgroup and the Baha'i Faith is
voluntary it is not censorship to place limitations within that context. If
someone chooses not to call themselves a Baha'i then they can do whatever they
like as George is now doing.
warmest, Susan
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 4:57 pm:
>>
>>> Because Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck's name is on an NSA letter I received
>>> surely I am allowed to discuss it on the "Challenge & Critique"
>
> Our name is on that letter because the NSA told you to stop sending us private
> emails (i.e. harrassing spamming.) That has nothing to do with your fantasy
> about what we told the NSA regarding the nature of the three lists in
> question.Pat sent them the charter. That is all they were told, period.
So now you are trying to shift the blame onto Kishan Manocha because you say
Pat sent the charter? As I have already said matters regarding
correspondence between myself with youself, Pat Kohli and the US NSA were
Baha'i matters. But ordering me off TRB. ARB and SCI were not Baha'i
business. It's not in the charter. Shom me were in the charter it says NSA's
can order Baha'is to leave TRB, ARB and SCI?
>
>>> Now you are trying another angle a "Poisioning the well" against me all
>>> because I wish to challenge the institutions of the Baha'i Faith.
>
> Au contraire. You are arguing that the NSA was simply misinformed. It is Pat
> and I who you are attacking.
If the cap fits then wear it. Read and digest this time the evidence is all
here. The Proof lies in Kishan Manocha (UK NSA) letter. He was conned by two
American Baha'is Pat Kohli and Susan Manrek into believing TRB, ARB and SCI
were sponsored by Baha'is when they tried unsuccessfuly to censor George
Fleming from these newsgroups. This was a lie. TRB, ARB and SCI are not
sponsored by Baha'i's, they are unmoderated groups open to all.
Let this be a warning to all those who wish to join the Baha'i Faith, you
will be censored on the internet if you step out of line of fundamentalists
Baha'is Susan maneck and Pat Kohli. They will report you to your NSA. Then
Baha'i jurisprudence (Sharia law) comes into play. Fear makes most baha'is
obey their NSA but george fleming resigned instead. Read proof below.
From: Kishan Manocha <kis...@manocha.win-uk.net>
Reply-To: <kis...@manocha.win-uk.net>
To: "'george.fleming2'" <george....@btinternet.com>
Date: WednesdayOctober 6301020022002 3:27 pm
Subject: RE: Your email letter of 21 October 2002
30 October 2002
Dear George
Thank you for your email.
The National Spiritual Assembly considers it imperative that you meet with
me as soon as possible. It is for the National Assembly to decide whether
to accept your resignation from the Faith and, in order to do this, it has
asked for this meeting. It is the National Assembly's strong hope that you
will agree to this.
By way of clarification, please note that the National Assembly has asked
you to refrain from posting messages on the ARB, TRB and SCI e-discussion
lists. It also asks you to not post on Baha'i-run unmoderated e-discussion
groups. Of course, you are free to contribute to any unmoderated e-list
which is not Baha'i-run or sponsored.
The National Spiritual Assembly sincerely hopes that we can work together to
find a way forward out of the current situation.
Best wishes
Kishan
>
>
>
>
>
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 5:10 pm:
>>
>>> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves
>>> have.
>>
>> What kind of 'censorship' is that then?
>
> Dear Raoul,
>
> Whatever is in the charter of the newsgroup in question. The charter for TRB
> includes the following:
>
> "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 relevant to the Baha'i Faith is
> prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam,
> and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are
> prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not
> HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged.
>
> Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
> are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive
> cross-posting."
If any of these rules are breached it has nothing to do with Baha'i
Administrative Order any more than have laws of the road. Since when can an
NSA remove a Baha'i driving iience. Each system has its own laws and they
are not interlinked. The internet laws are dealt with by abusenet and ISP
systems. Only when a crime is committed does outside law become involved.
The very fact I was accused and sentenced on the strength of two American's
(Biased poisioning the well) reports and without any consultation, shows the
whole Baha'i system as prejudiced and failing in human rights.
Errol
Raoul
>>> No more than the kind of 'censorship' which newsgroups themselves
>>> have.
>>
>> What kind of 'censorship' is that then?
>
> Dear Raoul,
>
> Whatever is in the charter of the newsgroup in question. The charter
> for TRB includes the following:
>
> "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 relevant to the Baha'i Faith is
> prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam,
> and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are
> prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not
> HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged.
>
> Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
> are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive
> cross-posting."
Charters aren't worth the paper they're not written on. Only posts relevant
to the Baha'i Faith? That's a joke! Guess we can't talk about MOAB then? Or
the war with Iraq? Or can we? Issues like that must have some religious
relevance. Who decides? Is it Ron, the groupthink guru? Or do you fancy the
job, Susan? And how are you going to enforce it? Tell you what, I'm going to
post an article about my cat's intestinal worms. Go on... stop me.
>>> They operate under certain charters which participants are
>>> obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
>>> didn't keep to any of them.
>>
>> I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident
>> Baha'is will be leaned on by their NSAs.
>
> I didn't say our obligations as Baha'is were identical to the charter
> of this newsgroup. I said both have their rules which they expect
> participants to abide by. And since participation in both the
> newsgroup and the Baha'i Faith is voluntary it is not censorship to
> place limitations within that context. If someone chooses not to call
> themselves a Baha'i then they can do whatever they like as George is
> now doing.
>
What about someone who chooses to call themselves a Baha'i? Are they not
allowed free speech?
Raoul
Susan Maneck
>Charters aren't worth the paper they're not written on.
Dear Raoul,
It is true they are not enforceable practically speaking. They are still there.
>Issues like that must have some religious
>relevance.
Actually, no. It must be relevant to the Baha'i Faith. Usually the charter gets
invoked when people are using the list to promote some other religion.
>Is it Ron, the groupthink guru?
Well, Ron was one of the people who helped write the charter.
>Or do you fancy the
>job, Susan?
Not me. I don't much like TRB period.
>
>What about someone who chooses to call themselves a Baha'i? Are they not
>allowed free speech?
They are expected not to act in ways that are antithetical to the teachings.
That may include not being able to engage in certain kinds of speech-acts.
warmest, Susan
Dermod Ryder
> Charters aren't worth the paper they're not written on. Only posts
relevant
> to the Baha'i Faith? That's a joke! Guess we can't talk about MOAB
then? Or
> the war with Iraq? Or can we? Issues like that must have some
religious
> relevance. Who decides? Is it Ron, the groupthink guru? Or do you
fancy the
> job, Susan? And how are you going to enforce it? Tell you what, I'm
going to
> post an article about my cat's intestinal worms. Go on... stop me.
Fire ahead and if it is of interest, doubtless somebody will respond.
Of course there are a lot of off-topic posts. Most people here have
developed a liking for fellow posters and will go off topic easily
into general chit-chat or totally extraneous subjects. If they are
topical and of interest they will generate responses - if not they
just die.
Of course it can't be stopped - after all who really does want tostop
any decent intelligent conversation. I find that the Charter is
always quoted not when posts are off-topic but when posters start
getting nasty.
Dermod.
Pat Kohli
Raoul wrote:
> (snip items which I think Susan addressed)
>
> > They operate under certain charters which participants are
> > obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
> > didn't keep to any of them.
>
> I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident Baha'is
> will be leaned on by their NSAs.
Of course not. That letter from the UK NSA is not an example of an NSA leaning
on a dissident Baha'i. If anything, it is the opposite. TRB is a place where
dissident Baha'i can hang out. Fleming (George or Errol) came here taunting
dissident Baha'is, calling everyone here a bunch of Covenant Breakers, and
saying he was loyal to the administrative order. Nima Hazini (then a former
Baha'i who had been critical of the Adminsitrative Order) was taking Fleming's
personal attacks is proof positive that the AO was harassing him.
(snip)
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Paul Hammond
> in article 20030316114705...@mb-mu.aol.com, Susan Maneck at
> sma...@aol.com wrote on 16/3/03 4:47 pm:
>
> >>> It is obvious Dr Maneck does not understand the difference between personal
> >>> namecalling, and nasty insults to challenge and critque of the instutions
> of
> >>> the religion she belongs to
> >
> > It is obvious that you don't know the difference between libel and critique.
> > You accused Pat and I of deceiving the Institutions regarding the nature of
> > ARB, TRB, and SCI. Pat Kohli sent the NSA a copy of the TRB charter which
> > makes quite clear the nature of the list.
> >
> > So as Paul says, you're lying.
> >
> Never mind bringing Paul into this, can you not speak for yourself. Paul was
> never a Baha'i and furthermore as has been stated. There is nothing in the
> charter which says Baha'is who do not come up to your's or Pat Kohli's
> expectations as a pood baha'i can be lneaned on by their respective NSA's.
>
Logic and truth are different for Baha'is then, errol?
Seems to me it's *you* who are poisioning the well here.
"Paul isn't a Baha'i, so we can excuse him for his
ignorance".
George, I learned a damn sight more about the Baha'i
Faith in my first year of meeting Baha'is than you
apparently ever did in 13 years as a member.
Anyway, my faith status is entirely irrelevant to
questions about the truth of a statement or argument.
If Pat sent the trb charter in full to that UK Baha'i
chap, thingy, then he did not mislead him about the
nature of the list, as you now claim.
Paul
Raoul
> Raoul wrote:
>
>> (snip items which I think Susan addressed)
>>
>>> They operate under certain charters which participants are
>>> obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
>>> didn't keep to any of them.
>>
>> I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident
>> Baha'is will be leaned on by their NSAs.
>
> Of course not. That letter from the UK NSA is not an example of an
> NSA leaning on a dissident Baha'i.
Baha'i, dissident Baha'i, ex-Baha'i, grumpy old bastard? Does it matter? You
did try to get him thrown off TRB, didn't you? I admit I may not be fully up
to speed on the history of this particular Baha'i war, but I do have some
experience of Usenet. Unmoderated groups are globally accessible public
forums. It is very hard, if not impossible, to control what people say in
them (though control is what some people try to do). Becuse they cannot be
controlled, people can more or less say what the want. In a sense, you could
say that makes them (the groups) a paradigm for free speech. In my opinion,
that is a very good thing. That may suprise you given the number of wackos,
weirdos, sociopaths, etc there are on Usenet. But I think we're stuck with
them. As I said to Susan, if someone wanted to be really nasty, they could
use an anonymous remailer. So I say ignore the nasty stuff. As for the
not-so-nasty stuff, the stuff we disagree with or get anoyed by, I would say
that's the price of free speech - we have to be prepared to hear things we
may not like. What is the alternative? If you were to advocate a groupthink
scenario, that would make the Baha'i Faith nothing more than a cult. Who
wants that? Thank goodness we don't all think alike. If we did, we wouldn't
be Bahai's or non-baha'is, we would be Borg. Oo-er, scary!
Over to you.
Raoul
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/3/03 2:00 am:
Well if Pat Kohli knew the charter had nothing to do with the Baha'i
Administration why did he and Susan maneck involve them? All they have done
is bring more discredit to the Baha'i faith when non-baha'is read those UK
NSA censorship letters with American Baha'is Pat Kohli and Susan maneck's
name on them. when I keep sending them to numerous newsgroups. The letters
are some propagation (especially for young people who use the internet).
They will say to themselves, this is one religion to avoid, it banns you
from the internet, if you use breach any internet rules.
Errol
errol9
Having never attended a Baha'i Feast or been involved in Baha'i activities
only Baha'i become involved in you will never know how the baha'i
Administration works unless you have been a signed up member of the Baha'i
faith. You are like the guy who sits in the dockside pub telling sailors a
lot of sea stories when you have never been to sea.
Take a break Paul an go and have a kit-Kat.............Errol
Pat Kohli
Raoul wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote:
> > Raoul wrote:
> >
> >> (snip items which I think Susan addressed)
> >>
> >>> They operate under certain charters which participants are
> >>> obliged to follow. Baha'is also have certain obligations. George
> >>> didn't keep to any of them.
> >>
> >> I've read the charter. There's nothing in there that says dissident
> >> Baha'is will be leaned on by their NSAs.
> >
> > Of course not. That letter from the UK NSA is not an example of an
> > NSA leaning on a dissident Baha'i.
>
> Baha'i, dissident Baha'i, ex-Baha'i, grumpy old bastard? Does it matter?
You tell me if it makes a whit of difference between the UK NSA leaning on a
dissident Baha'i, leaning on an ex-Baha'i, or leaning on a Baha'i who not only
claimed to be loyal to the AO, but asked to be reported to that NSA.
> You
> did try to get him thrown off TRB, didn't you?
I must have missed that. How could someone be thrown off of TRB? I have
complained of his poor netiquette and even his cyber-stalking. I think I've
gone so far as to suggest that he has a pattern of threatening and intimidating
folks, with adverse consequences for free speech. Seeing as how TRB is a very
open forum, it would be next to impossible to have someone thrown off against
their will. When their netabuse gets them bounced off of one ISP, they go to
another and are back. When they realize they have no credibility, and no one
cares what they say, they get a new handle and people read their words of $hit
for a day before they are identified and again ignored.
> I admit I may not be fully up
> to speed on the history of this particular Baha'i war,
and that is okay.
> but I do have some
> experience of Usenet. Unmoderated groups are globally accessible public
> forums. It is very hard, if not impossible, to control what people say in
> them (though control is what some people try to do). Becuse they cannot be
> controlled, people can more or less say what the want. In a sense, you could
> say that makes them (the groups) a paradigm for free speech. In my opinion,
> that is a very good thing. That may suprise you given the number of wackos,
> weirdos, sociopaths, etc there are on Usenet. But I think we're stuck with
> them.
So what? That has nothing to do with him going after where people live and
work. He is way past being a cyber quack!
> As I said to Susan, if someone wanted to be really nasty, they could
> use an anonymous remailer.
I'm really glad you don't mention that where he can read; I wouldn't want to
think you are giving him ideas for his next prank. But seriously, after he does
that, it will be something else. As long as he has folks to intimidate, he will
intimidate.
> So I say ignore the nasty stuff.
That's what I'm sayin'!
(snip)
Raoul
From whatever source?
Raoul
Pat Kohli
Raoul wrote:
If we ignore the nasty source we'll ignore all its nasty stuff. When it
posts here the emails that it is sending my employers, alleging I hang
it here all the time, I won't even see it, and it won't draw any
satisfaction from my outraged howls of indignation; when all ignore it,
it won't read of anyone's outraged indignation at whatever it has done
now.
Allow me to reiterate something that seems to get forgotten in every
other message: I don't mind folks posting stupid stuff. Oh, I might
fuss about how they really should check their stupid stories out
_before_ posting them as if they were facts, but it it is part of the
act, I really don't mind. Some might even suspect I enjoy a lot of the
nonsense about this that and the other thing.
What I see here that is different is a continuing pattern of
intimidation of dissenting points of view. I think it calls for a
different response than a simple refutation, before he has succeeded in
chasing off the people who really do want to use the NG for its intended
purpose: discussion of the BF.
Best wishes!