Why should you Susan?
Rod
>> your impotent venom allegations I will let you down out of the
>> tree ;-)
>
>Why should I?
Because it is the only moral option.
Because it is the only ethical option.
Because it is the only fair option.
Because it is the only just option.
Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
Because it is the only peace option.
Because it is the only healing option.
Because it is the only truthful option
Because it is the only principled option.
Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
Because it is the only Baha'i option.
Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
to my faith.
Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals relationship
to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred ground.
Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a member
of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?
Rod.
Susan Maneck
>of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?
>
Obviously you must have sympathies with the dissidents or you would not be
volunteering to add material to Fred Glaysher's website as you did here:
>> If you've missed it, please read "The Bahai Technique":
>To which I intend contributing an addenda.
I tried to make a genuine engagement with you on the issue of Due Process and
all I got was your nastiness in return, which persuaded me you did not want to
explore the issue but merely to attack.
Any judgements I might have made regarding you were based solely on your own
behavior.
Rod
Ignoring all options Susan wrote-
>Obviously you must have sympathies with the dissidents or you would
not be
>volunteering to add material to Fred Glaysher's website as you did
here:
The evidence that I belong to an anti Baha'i faction is that I
volunteered an
addenda to 'The Baha'i Technique *AFTER* you made your accusations?
(I said I intended an addenda to 'The Baha'i Technique' Susan, I made
no
suggestion as to contributing "material to Fred Glaysher's website".
You have provided such ample and expansive material I was considering
dedicating the chapter to you- 'I didn't say that Susan' is my working
title)
>> If you've missed it, please read "The Bahai Technique":
>To which I intend contributing an addenda.
Your psychic powers are far more developed than I had previously
assumed Susan.
It would be pointless to point out that my proposed addenda was to be
on misrepresentation and assumed psychic insights as a foundation for
baseless allegations within the Baha'i community....for you doubtless
already knew this.
Your paranormal prowess aside....do you seriously wish to contend that
any Baha'i expressing "sympathy" with the "dissident" (liberal?)
position on any given subject serves as validation for your
accusations of alliance with anti faith factions and a belief in AO
plots?
That if a Baha'i recognises patterns of behaviour or cultural
attributes within the 'community'and their conclusions concur with ex
Baha'is or Baha'i opponents then they are all one in the same? In
cahoots? Members of the same faction?
Susan.......Do you distinguish at all between your behaviour 'as a
Baha'i''/ the communities behaviour 'as Baha'is' and the Faith itself?
Or does any contribution to or "sympathy" with criticisms of the
former (two) automatically constitute an attack on the latter?
(ie If I find particalar common Baha'i behaviour
(specific/identifiable)to be repugnant and express that view am I
inevitably opposed to 'The Faith'?)
>I tried to make a genuine engagement with you on the issue of Due
Process and
>all I got was your nastiness in return,
So you keep repeating ad infinitum....yet you refuse to
identify/specify what nasty attacks I made on you prior to your "AO
plots" and anti faith factional alliance allegations.
Am I to conclude that seeing into the future you made your allegations
in retribution for "nastiness" that was to follow your attacks?.
A kind of psychic precognitive pre emptive strike?
>which persuaded me you did not want to explore the issue but merely
to attack.
Like this?-
............................
Susan
> No, but you answer every post in an 'attack mode'
Wot, by repeating over and over again "I didn't say that"?
............................
You keep using "nasty", "attack", "attack mode" over and over as if
the repetition will make it true, real or apparent.......and yet you
steadfastly refuse to cite a single example of what you are referring
to.
>Any judgements I might have made regarding you were based solely on
your own
>behaviour.
Yea, right.......And you are never going to cite, specify or define
what that "behaviour" was are you Susan? You are quite comfortable
with the proposition that my unspecified behaviour serves as firm
foundation for your "judgement" (expressed in the public domain) that
I believe in "AO plots" and hold alliance with anti Baha'i factions?
And if, post the event, I point out that this refusal to cite and
specify the basis for an allegation is (demonstrably) an aspect of
contemporary Baha'i community culture then I am in sympathy with the
anti Baha'i faction and therefore one of 'them'?
My apologies Susan, confronted thus with the abundant evidence of my
"nasty jackass attack mode" I can see no alternative to the
"judgements" you have reached.
Confronted with the clear evidence of my "sympathies" I must retire
now to consider the best course of corrective action...for it is now
abundantly clear...all those who have found points of agreement and
sympathy with expressed "dissident" POVs are in league with the
enemy...
Pat K, Dave F, World C....hell, 2/3rds of the Online Baha'is!
Do you think they even know that they have gone over to the Dark Side
of The Force?
It's terrifying Susan....Doc PK of the UHJ has expressed "sympathy"
with, nay written confirmation of, the 'dissident proposition that
fundamentalism exists within the Baha'i faith.
Shall you tell him or shall I that this forms substantive foundation
for our sound "judgement" that he is against his faith?
Rod.
I can draw no other conclusion than that you wish to continue play in
accord with your anything goes, No Rules, explanations are beneath you
policy.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Susan Maneck
>accusations of alliance with anti faith factions and a belief in AO
>plots?
I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind? In fact it
seems to me all your accusations of my making baseless accussations against you
are based on a very vaque reference to 'you guys.'
>You keep using "nasty", "attack", "attack mode" over and over as if
>the repetition will make it true, real or apparent.......and yet you
>steadfastly refuse to cite a single example of what you are referring
>to.
I've yet to see a single post you've made here that wasn't in 'attack mode.' I
don't intend to respost every post you make to prove this.
george.fleming2
sma...@aol.com wrote on 14/2/03 7:30 am:
Steven Scholl, March 12, 2002:
"The problem in her [Susan Maneck] cult view of the world is the
"dissident act" of shining a light on internal Baha'i affairs so that
outsiders (and insiders) can learn about what really takes place in
the Baha'i world. The great sin is ignoring the Baha'i taboo against
speaking out against internalinjustices because to do so is to tarnish
the reputation of the Baha'i institutions. Good Baha'is are expected
to take their abuse in silence. If they speak out against abuse,
they are regarded as internal opposition and come under investigation
from the Baha'i Inquisition. They are villified and threatened, even
told that their status in the afterlife is threatened if they don't
change their ways. And, yes, this was a key element [in] the little
drama that played out between the Baha'i leadership and myself."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl4.htm
Susan Maneck
>attributes within the 'community'and their conclusions concur with ex
>Baha'is or Baha'i opponents then they are all one in the same?
If a Baha'i does *nothing* on a public list but bash the community he clearly
does not have the best interests of the Faith at heart.
>.Doc PK of the UHJ has expressed "sympathy"
>with, nay written confirmation of, the 'dissident proposition that
>fundamentalism exists within the Baha'i faith.
The difference between Peter Khan, or Pat Kohli or myself for that matters is
that if we make a criticism, we make a critcism and then move on. We don't get
fixated on that point of criticism and use it to endlessly discredit either the
Baha'i community or the Faith in public.
Rod
Susan-
"I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
You didn't have to and "no thanks" the prospect makes grown men
tremble.
Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was prompted to
comment
upon it. You sought to portray me as a member of a faction believing
in
AO plots and openly opposing the faith. Your equivocation compounds
your unethical practice.
Susan-
" In fact it seems to me all your accusations of my making baseless
accusations
against you are based on a very vaque reference to 'you guys.'"
From: Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com)Subject: Re: Why I Don't Respond
to bahai
Fundamentalists Message 139 in thread
"And you too are speaking in ways representative and reflective of an
identifiable group. That's not because you promote due process, plenty
of
Baha'is do that. I even do it at time. It is that you do it in the
spirit of
nastiness and paranoia common to certain factions of which
Dermod and Nima are prime examples."
NOT a vague reference Susan, open precise public and explicit. You
cast me
as "representative" of a "faction" openly opposed to the Baha'i Faith.
Your subsequent obfuscation is spurious and cyclic- "Your a member of
a group",
"What group?", "The nasty paranoid anti faith group", "What is your
evidence for
this allegation?", "Your posts", "Which posts?", "Every single one",
"In what way
do they attack you or the faith?", "By being reflective and
representative of a group"...
Who's on first Susan?
>You keep using "nasty", "attack", "attack mode" over and over as if
>the repetition .will make it true, real or apparent.......and yet you
>steadfastly refuse to cite a single example of what you are referring
to.
Susan-
"I've yet to see a single post you've made here that wasn't in 'attack
mode.' I
don't intend to respost every post you make to prove this."
Then cite ONE Susan. Put forward one example of the personal nastiness
and
paranoia and reflectiveness of anti faith factional membership that
you persist
in claiming but refuse to provide any evidence for.
>That if a Baha'i recognises patterns of behaviour or cultural
>attributes within the 'community'and their conclusions concur with ex
>Baha'is or Baha'i opponents then they are all one in the same?
Susan-
"If a Baha'i does *nothing* on a public list but bash the community he
clearly
does not have the best interests of the Faith at heart."
By "*nothing* but bash the community" I am obliged to conclude that
you
are (again) evoking my every single post and issue raised as
substantiation
of your claim- 'Due Process', 'Banjo Clarke/Baha'i Saint', 'Community
Stage
Development', 'Mediation/Conflict Resolution', 'Preservation of Text
Integrity',
'True Consultation', 'Love' and 'Emptiness....all these and all other
topics
pursued constitute "nothing but" a clear disinterest in the wellbeing
of the faith?
>.Doc PK of the UHJ has expressed "sympathy"
>with, nay written confirmation of, the 'dissident proposition that
>fundamentalism exists within the Baha'i faith.
Susan-
"The difference between Peter Khan, or Pat Kohli or myself for that
matters is
that..."
Two out of the three have the cajones to actually back up and
substantiate what
they claim?
Susan-
"if we make a criticism, we make a critcism and then move on."
Oh I see, it's the 'duration over which a point is made or an issue is
pursued. So any one (me, Latin toy boy 'El') who finds no
satisfaction
in the response they receive or, common and worse, finds the
issue/criticism
attacked/obstructed/obfuscated or, more common and worse still, find
themselves (character/intent/faith allegiance) subject to innuendo and
attack
for having raised the issue is "fixated"?
Unresolved issues? No closure huh?
Susan-
" We don't get fixated on that point of criticism and use it to
endlessly discredit
either the Baha'i community or the Faith in public."
And we are not supposed to read this as an explicit reference to my
conduct
and intent are we Susan? You are not here, once more, openly inferring
and
accusing me of "using" a criticism to "endlessly discredit either the
Baha'i
community or the Faith in public" are you? Such an interpretation
would be
just a manifestation of my "nasty paranoia"? All you do here, again,
is make
vague oblique and impersonal comment on general stuff that happens
huh?
I (any Baha'i) shouldn't get "fixated" on this kind of behaviour and
"endlessly"
drag it out and criticise it because it's really not that
important...just a little
unsubstantiated allegation (made in public) of having sought to
"discredit" the
faith (in public).
Tis just a trifle, the kind of thing any mature soul would just let go
of, move
on and forget about....until it happens the next time...and the
next....and so
on... without end....blessing tests.
No Susan....Not from you, not from Pith, not from any of the pissant
fundamentalist
self appointed defender of the faith fruitloops on the Net....
NOT THIS LITTLE BLACK DUCK!
You wanna infer, allege, accuse, associate or relate me to any
attempt, action,
post, behaviour, expression or criticism designed, intended or
interpreted as an
attack upon or discrediting of the Baha'i Faith then you come armed
with lawyers
guns and money honey....and a file of clear and unequivocal
substantiating citations of my "factional representations".
Lest I pursue you hither and yon through cyber space and seven levels
of administrate hell to expose you as the lying slimy intellectually
and ethically vacant moral maggot that you fruitlessly seek to conceal
beneath endless obfuscation.
"Attack mode" 'now' on.
;-)
Warmest.
Rod
Susan Maneck
>cast me
>as "representative" of a "faction" openly opposed to the Baha'i Faith
I'm sorry you can't read a text. I said the way you were acting was
'representative' of these folks, not that you were representing them.
>Then cite ONE Susan.
This one. And the one before that. And the one before that.
>
>By "*nothing* but bash the community" I am obliged to conclude that
>you
>are (again) evoking my every single post and issue raised as
>substantiation
>of your claim
I'm saying show me one positive post you have made on this list since you
started posting here!
Cal E. Rollins
Goverment Style Manual (Peace be upon It) that "representative of" and
"representing" are essentially, for all intents and purposes, the same.
--Cal
Rod
Of course Cal....You know that, I know that, Pat knows that, El knows
that,
Susan knows that, everyone knows that....it's part of 'The Game'.
The rules of the game are that nice people, polite people, middle
class and upper professional spiritual people dont come right out and
explicitly say what they mean when they have an allegation/want to be
nasty. They use inferance, innuendo,semantics and sail as close to the
wind as they possibly can without ever hoisting their true colours.
Amongst the middle class professional sacharin sweet spiritual folk no
one ever says "fuck off you bastard", that would be crude and vulgar.
Arround the board room table you never hear or see the shank comming,
no forewarning. The agression is sly, secretive, slimy, patient,
thought out and drawn out and always covered by 'plausable
deniability'
no matter how impauasible- "you guys, representative faction, seeking
to discredit the faith......Oh but I wasn't saying that was you Rod!"
I'm a working class dog Cal, I swear and fart openly and when I'm
angry I let people know exactly how angry and why and what comes next.
As with most poor and working class this renders the conflict open,
volatile, loud, honest and short lived...there is no drawn out
sculking semantic gameplaying and deception.
I have worked in prisons, with street kids, with drug addicts and
psych disabled and I have stood facing the knife and the syringe. I
have sat at the board room table with the Welfare management and the
Government rep and never saw the brick that hit me till I was halfway
home.
But, as God is my witness, I have never met anything as slipery,
slimy, frightening, shithouse rat dirty cunning and duplicitous as a
Baha'i defending the faith from a percieved threat...no rules rule for
mother Baha'i bear.
Rod.
Rod
> >You
> >cast me
> >as "representative" of a "faction" openly opposed to the Baha'i Faith
>
> I'm sorry you can't read a text. I said the way you were acting was
> 'representative' of these folks, not that you were representing them.
Ever tried to get a leach on a fish hook?
Every time you push the tip of the hook into the leach its whole
body kinda squirms and vanishes up the other end were the hook aint.
> >Then cite ONE Susan.
>
> This one. And the one before that. And the one before that.
There ya go! No hook!
The invitation was (and for those counting this is the 7th-8th time)
to cite 'one' example of the nasty, rude, bad man, attack mode, posts
that led to and preceeded your "'representative' of these folks" assertion.
You keep repeating that I had been "nasty" to you, that I was behaving like a
"paranoid" and a "jackass" and that all this happened before you lumped my
behaviour with a particular "faction".
It's not a complicated question/request Susan, why the evasion?
My behaviour must have been pretty bad throughout the discussion on
due process to merit "nasty", "paraniod" and "attack mode"...so what,
exactly, did I say (during the due process discussion) that so provoked
you?
Subsequent to that discussion there is no arguement, you lumped me in
with Dermod and Nima, hell, those guys are real mean bastards, bite
the heads off chooks type characters....of course I'm going to kick
back when you try to associate me with them, who wouldn't.
But before that Susan, what nasty terrible attacks did I make upon
you or the faith?
> >
> >By "*nothing* but bash the community" I am obliged to conclude that
> >you
> >are (again) evoking my every single post and issue raised as
> >substantiation
> >of your claim
>
> I'm saying show me one positive post you have made on this list since you
> started posting here!
Aaaaaaaaaah come on Sue! Don't be coy. You show me yours and I'll
show you mine. After all I asked first. In fact I have asked several
times and you have shown me nothing. And it's not such a big ask...just
a little peek at the nasty posts I made before the world went sour.
Then I'm positive I can come up with something positive.
Rod.