"Enemies of the Faith" and Baha'i caste system
Eric Stetson
lists -- ex-bahai, Zuhur19, and overbahai -- and somebody asked me to
post it to TRB, so here it is.
Eric Stetson
Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
http://www.bahai-faith.com
Ex-Baha'i Discussion & Debate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ex-bahai/
--- In over...@yahoogroups.com, "bridcilldara2"
<bridcilldara2@y...> wrote:
> Now this is an interesting one Eric. At what point do we
> become 'enemies of the faith' as far as Baha'is are concerned? What
> is the definition of an 'enemy of the faith'? Are we on this and
> the other sister lists enemies of the faith? Could we be officially
> declared as such? The letter from the UHJ regarding ex-baha'is
> makes it all sound very subjective.
I think there has been a tendency in recent years for the Baha'i AO
to think of "enemy of the faith" as more and more of a separate
category or status, but as far as I know it is not an official
designation (yet) and one cannot be formally declared as such (yet).
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Currently, the Baha'is think of humanity as being divided into a few
official groups or castes. I have organized them in a list
from "best" to "worst" based on how many rights they would have in a
future Baha'i world order:
1. Baha'i in good standing
2. Baha'i with administrative rights removed
3. non-Baha'i
4. Covenant-breaker
If you include more subtle gradations, which may possibly acquire a
greater degree of official status in the future, the list would look
like this:
1. Baha'i in good standing, active
2. Baha'i in good standing, inactive
3. Baha'i with some administrative rights removed
4. Baha'i with all administrative rights removed (Feast attendance,
voting, eligibility for election, contribution to Funds, contribution
to Huququ'llah, plus anything I'm forgetting to mention)
5. non-Baha'i (never been a Baha'i)
6. ex-Baha'i, left voluntarily (not an opponent)
7. ex-Baha'i, membership revoked/expelled by UHJ (not an opponent)
8. opponent or enemy of the faith, non-Baha'i
9. opponent or enemy of the faith, ex-Baha'i
10. child or grandchild of Covenant-breaker, not practicing in
Covenant-breaker organization
11. Covenant-breaker, not officially declared by UHJ but member of
Covenant-breaker organization
12. Covenant-breaker, officially declared by UHJ
Groups 10-12 constitute the Baha'i version of the "untouchable
caste." Groups 4-12 (the vast majority of categories) would not have
the right to vote in elections for the highest governmental
positions, i.e. the Baha'i Houses of Justice that would have final
authority at the local, national, and international levels.
How's that for unity of all people, huh?
Best,
Eric
Karen Bacquet
>
> Currently, the Baha'is think of humanity as being divided into a few
> official groups or castes. I have organized them in a list
> from "best" to "worst" based on how many rights they would have in a
> future Baha'i world order:
>
> 1. Baha'i in good standing
> 2. Baha'i with administrative rights removed
> 3. non-Baha'i
> 4. Covenant-breaker
>
> If you include more subtle gradations, which may possibly acquire a
> greater degree of official status in the future, the list would look
> like this:
Dear Eric,
Actually, there are already officially and unofficially more "subtle
gradations". Ex-Baha'is, and unenrolled Baha'is are simply considered
non-Baha'is *officially*, and are supposed to be treated with the same
friendliness that non-Baha'is are. Unofficially, people are often
dropped like hot potatoes when they resign -- I've heard story after
story about this.
Officially, some ex-Baha'is who are critics of the Faith can be
considered "spiritually corrosive" and thus to be avoided. This is all
mentioned in their letter on people who have withdrawn from the Faith
that came out a year or two ago.
I've heard that people associated with covenant-breaker groups, but who
were never enrolled with Haifa are considered "supporters of
covenant-breakers". Apparently, it takes more than hooking up with a
Remeyite group to make you CB; they have to think you're spiritually
twisted. Both types are shunned similarly, but the official
catagorization is different.
>
> How's that for unity of all people, huh?
There's no enemy feared and dispised more than the internal enemy --
there's a history of that even in Christianity. But then, Christianity
never claimed to be uniting the world, either.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F4D32D6...@tco.net...
> Officially, some ex-Baha'is who are critics of the Faith can be
> considered "spiritually corrosive" and thus to be avoided.
Dat's me, folks - so designated by Her Supreme Pontificatingness the DST, no
less, and proud of it.
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
it.
Bats are bugs - think about it.
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
*giggle* I knew you'd respond to that, Dermod! I'm sure you have the
email post where that coveted title was conferred on you printed and
framed in a prominent place. :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
Paul Hammond
> I posted the following message to all three of the ex-Baha'i sister
> lists -- ex-bahai, Zuhur19, and overbahai -- and somebody asked me to
> post it to TRB, so here it is.
>
I've never heard of "overbahai" before.
Is that supposed to mean like "Baha'is who are over" or
"The Baha'i Faith is like so over"?
Could you post the group description here please?
Paul
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
Great wittering eyeballs! Am I so predictable?
Yes indeed, you are right - those Grumpie inspired words emanating from the
poisoned pen, are enscribed in an illuminated address, lovingly enhanced by
strategically placed low intensity lighting, on a wall in the throne room.
Whilst cogitating I can look upwards (very slightly) and see it. How one
activity can lead to and inspire another .......!
PS Have you noticed that she hasn't been about for a few days? Isn't life
wonderful!
PPS Don't rely to this otherwise she can deny she saw it!
>
> Love, Karen
> http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
> >
> >
>
Eric Stetson
Sure, no problem. Here it is:
Over Baha'i
This group is for EX-Baha'i support ONLY. We're OVER Baha'i. Please
don't join to debate. Anyone posting with preferences or leanings
towards the "faith" will be removed, as there are plenty of venues
online for you to do this. This list is for emotional and
psychological support ONLY for those DEPROGRAMMED OR DEPROGRAMMING
from the cult of The Baha'i Faith. All members must post, if you fail
to post, you will be removed. This list's archives are private.
Debating semantics and otherwise "facilitating" flame wars and
digression from the topic of support is grounds for removal. This
group is a sister list to Zuhur19 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zuhur19 as well as Eric Stetson's
Ex-Baha'i list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ex-bahai
-----
The group email address is over...@yahoogroups.com and the URL is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbahai/
As you can see, this group is the most anti-Baha'i of the three
ex-Baha'i sister lists. Zuhur19 is in the middle (imagine that!) and
my ex-bahai list is the most liberal and open.
As you can see, the ex-Baha'is have been getting organized online.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> >
> > Currently, the Baha'is think of humanity as being divided into a few
> > official groups or castes. I have organized them in a list
> > from "best" to "worst" based on how many rights they would have in a
> > future Baha'i world order:
> >
> > 1. Baha'i in good standing
> > 2. Baha'i with administrative rights removed
> > 3. non-Baha'i
> > 4. Covenant-breaker
> >
> > If you include more subtle gradations, which may possibly acquire a
> > greater degree of official status in the future, the list would look
> > like this:
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> Actually, there are already officially and unofficially more "subtle
> gradations". Ex-Baha'is, and unenrolled Baha'is are simply considered
> non-Baha'is *officially*, and are supposed to be treated with the same
> friendliness that non-Baha'is are. Unofficially, people are often
> dropped like hot potatoes when they resign -- I've heard story after
> story about this.
I deliberately left unenrolled Baha'is off my list because the Baha'i
AO doesn't agree that you can be a Baha'i without being enrolled. I
think, as you say, people like yourself would simply fall into the
"non-Baha'i" category as far as the Baha'i Faith organization is
concerned.
> Officially, some ex-Baha'is who are critics of the Faith can be
> considered "spiritually corrosive" and thus to be avoided. This is all
> mentioned in their letter on people who have withdrawn from the Faith
> that came out a year or two ago.
But can a person be OFFICIALLY DECLARED as "spiritually corrosive" or
an "opponent" or "enemy of the faith" by the UHJ, or is this just a
matter of personal opinion among the Baha'is? If such an official
declaration or status exists, I wonder if it has been applied to me?
> I've heard that people associated with covenant-breaker groups, but who
> were never enrolled with Haifa are considered "supporters of
> covenant-breakers". Apparently, it takes more than hooking up with a
> Remeyite group to make you CB; they have to think you're spiritually
> twisted. Both types are shunned similarly, but the official
> catagorization is different.
Thanks for pointing this out. I guess my list should have included 13
categories.
> > How's that for unity of all people, huh?
>
> There's no enemy feared and dispised more than the internal enemy --
> there's a history of that even in Christianity. But then, Christianity
> never claimed to be uniting the world, either.
Christianity claims only that the world will be united after Christ
returns and brings His Kingdom to fulfillment on earth. So it's
purely an eschatological expectation that God must bring about instead
of a practical one that humankind can bring about.
Best,
Eric
Karen Bacquet
>
>
>>Officially, some ex-Baha'is who are critics of the Faith can be
>>considered "spiritually corrosive" and thus to be avoided. This is all
>>mentioned in their letter on people who have withdrawn from the Faith
>>that came out a year or two ago.
>
>
> But can a person be OFFICIALLY DECLARED as "spiritually corrosive" or
> an "opponent" or "enemy of the faith" by the UHJ, or is this just a
> matter of personal opinion among the Baha'is? If such an official
> declaration or status exists, I wonder if it has been applied to me?
Dear Eric,
If I'm not mistaken, there is only one person that was ever referred to
by the AO in those terms publicly, and even then it wasn't an official
declaration from Haifa, like being declared CB would be. Actually, in
some way, this sort of vagueness, where Baha'is are left guessing who
they think is "spiritually corrosive" by the administration's standards
is actually more harmful than just listing the people they are talking
about. That sort of vagueness breeds suspicion about anybody who is an
ex-Baha'i or unenrolled Baha'i critic. A similar thing happened in
their "internal opposition" letter where people were left wondering "Who
are they talking about? Are they talking about me? Are they talking
about all academic scholars?" Oh, sure, they'd get protests if they
named names -- but at least you wouldn't get all the speculation, which
I think does more harm in the long run. But don't even get me started
on the weirdness of UHJ letters . . .
I doubt if they think that you are "corrosive", although I couldn't
swear for sure. It's always tempting to wonder what the boys upstairs
really think of you -- it's not like they tell you. I have heard from
more than one source that they regard me as someone who "just doesn't
get it", and actually the NSA in their letter to me pretty much said
that, too. But I had to be out here a while before that kind of
information got back to me. In some ways, it's kind of patronizing; I'd
almost rather be thought evil than be thought stupid. :-) But I'm a more
balanced critic, and have usually been careful to give credit when
credit is due, so they can't quite give me horns and a forked tail. I
have a hunch, Eric, just from what I've seen from you so far, that you'd
fall pretty much in the same category as I do. If you stay active in
cyberspace for a few years, you might find out this kind of stuff from
people.
However, I've long thought that Haifa will eventually invent a new
category, and that people will, at some point, be declared "enemies of
the Faith" in an official way, as has been done in the past to
covenant-breakers. They won't be shunned, of course, just "avoided". :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
Karen Bacquet
I just had the thought about the AO thinking me more stupid than evil:
I actually regard them in very much the same light!
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> it.
It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it. It's an
unwritten thing - everybody knows about it and everybody falls in with it.
Start with CBs - the BIGS are bound to shun them and they do... under pain
of being so entitled themselves.
Move from that to proto-CBs (the likes of me) who, whilst not so designated
by the Grumpies, ARE recognised as such by elements within the community;
enlightened souls, who "instruct" those who do not already recognise their
duty to shun and avoid the enemy of the community. These are prominent and
influential people within the community - people who have status and who
are, in at least some instances, members of the Institutions.
Furthermore, as I well know, the Institutions, up to and including national
level, do nothing to stop the practice. They go into denial at first then
into delay mode and, of course, they never put anything at all in writing
about the practice. It is the most insidious cult like aspect of Bahaism
and it's also the biggest bloody joke around, about them. This protective
action is execrated by outsiders who find out about it. The bad taste puts
people off the Faith, once they find out about it ... unless, of course,
they are warped enough to join in. And of course, it has me rolling in the
aisles. When a dirtbag called spiritually corrosive, on line, in accord
with the directives of the Grumpies, I dissolved into laughter - I had her
beaten. And do I now love to rub it in?
The only reason I stopped the legal action against George was that it was
exactly what the local AO wanted done (and I have proof). He does, I will
readily admit, generally talk a lot of doo-doo around here but,
occasionally, he comes out with real gems ... especially when a good while
back he named some of the people who were charged with conducting
surveillance on my anti-Bahai activities. This corroborated (and added to)
information that I already had. To date not one Bahai institution has
replied to my correspondence on the subject.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Eric Stetson" <erics...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f581312e.03082...@posting.google.com...
> As you can see, this group is the most anti-Baha'i of the three
> ex-Baha'i sister lists. Zuhur19 is in the middle (imagine that!) and
> my ex-bahai list is the most liberal and open.
>
> As you can see, the ex-Baha'is have been getting organized online.
But with far too much anger to be an effective force in countering the AO -
"Revenge is a dish best enjoyed cold" and "don't get mad - get even!"
Paul Hammond
Thank you, Eric.
That's kind of what I thought - "We are so *over* being Baha'i"
Just thought it was an odd kind of name, and it made me
curious.
Do you know anything about the person running this list?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> > gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> > Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> > such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> > it.
>
> It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it.
What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
From _my_ perspective, if we were to stratify various categories of people,
surely the non-Baha'is would have more rights than the Baha'is who have lost
their rights - it is a simply matter of trying out a simply hypothetical case!
Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
prejudices.
> It's an
> unwritten thing - everybody knows about it and everybody falls in with it.
He made this one up. _Everybody_ knows that any non-Baha'i has the right to
get married, and any Baha'i who has lost their administrative rights _does_not_
have the right to get married. Yet, his list, shows,
<< 4. Baha'i with all administrative rights removed (Feast attendance,
<< voting, eligibility for election, contribution to Funds, contribution
<< to Huququ'llah, plus anything I'm forgetting to mention)
<< 5. non-Baha'i (never been a Baha'i)
.. a mistake that a real Baha'i would not make.
I suspect that real correspondence from the AO might say that ex-Baha'is, in
general, should be treated just like non-Baha'is in general.
Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own propaganda
purpose. It is no better than Fred's statement that Juan saw some letter from
the NSA, forbidding Baha'is from peace demonstrations, or something like that.
"Baha'u'llah bids his followers have friendly relations with non-Baha'is,
rather than fight with them, the reason being that all men are from God."
http://bahai-library.org/provisionals/aqdas/aqdas356.notes.html
>
> Start with CBs - the BIGS are bound to shun them and they do... under pain
> of being so entitled themselves.
>
Well, there is one, and it is no suprise.
>
> Move from that to proto-CBs (the likes of me)
He is just another Christian Missionary, and he could have claimed to be a
proto-CB, just to jump past Dale Grider, and Robert Arvey, and any other
missionary hanging around here, as if the Baha'is had him on their list.
Plainly, it has been versa vice, all along; we are on the list of the Christian
missionary.
> who, whilst not so designated
> by the Grumpies, ARE recognised as such by elements within the community;
Proto, quasi, pseudo crypto CB? Yeah, whatever ... more likely party A has
grown bored with party pseudo CB, and when party pseudo CB realizes they are
being ignored, and not wanting to consider that maybe some folks just haven't
got the background material all read up, such that party pCB seems funny to
them, party pCB just wants to seize the initiative with,
"I AM A COVENANT BREAKER, AIN'T I?"
Honestly, Dermod, you must have thought of this, and only fear of the Mrs.
Reaper has dissuaded you from going to some fireside, and screaming this one
from the rooftops. You can tell me.
>
> enlightened souls, who "instruct" those who do not already recognise their
> duty to shun and avoid the enemy of the community. These are prominent and
> influential people within the community - people who have status and who
> are, in at least some instances, members of the Institutions.
>
What are you saying? Are you saying, "people not at all like you, Pat, serious
Baha'is!" I think if a Baha'i can't relate to people as individuals, they
probably were not a serious Baha'i anyway, even if they can wear a lampshade
and a tuxedo.
>
> Furthermore, as I well know, the Institutions, up to and including national
> level, do nothing to stop the practice. They go into denial at first then
> into delay mode and, of course, they never put anything at all in writing
> about the practice.
Well, I thought I saw a letter trying to clarify the matter. That is the flip
side. There is always some odd Baha'i, writing the AO for advice on which side
of the bed they they should step out of.
> It is the most insidious cult like aspect of Bahaism
> and it's also the biggest bloody joke around, about them.
For crying out loud, Dermod, Paula's Baha'i friends just haven't done the
background reading that she has done. So, they don't find you entertaning
anymore; IT'S THEIR LOSS! What can anyone else say?
> This protective
> action is execrated by outsiders who find out about it. The bad taste puts
> people off the Faith, once they find out about it ... unless, of course,
> they are warped enough to join in. And of course, it has me rolling in the
> aisles. When a dirtbag called spiritually corrosive, on line, in accord
> with the directives of the Grumpies, I dissolved into laughter - I had her
> beaten. And do I now love to rub it in?
>
Of course you do, you are the one they are talking about as "Spiritually
corrosive" (I hope). It couldn't be George, or Cal, could it?
>
> The only reason I stopped the legal action against George was that it was
> exactly what the local AO wanted done (and I have proof).
They may have psyched you out, though. If I were the local AO, I'd rather see
you sue a Baha'i, that way, when the BF gets discussed, at least there would be
one Baha'i there to try to put it in a good light. Were you to sue George, the
ill-repute of the BF would be about the single point of agreement, right?
> He does, I will
> readily admit, generally talk a lot of doo-doo around here but,
> occasionally, he comes out with real gems ...
So long as your nose is working to sniff out the gems from the cow pies.
> especially when a good while
> back he named some of the people who were charged with conducting
> surveillance on my anti-Bahai activities.
Yes, but given that he has shown his ability to say all kinds of nonsense, such
as in the Kelly case ('traitor', 'September dossier declassified in February',
etc.), and when questioned about his sources, said he was simply quoting the
papers, I would not put to much credence in his statements, as sole source data
points. If you have additional corroboration, then George may trip me up by
getting something right, yet.
> This corroborated (and added to)
> information that I already had.
Well, if you really think he has added to your intel, I wonder if you have been
watching how many times he has baked the piggy pies. I don't count what I get
from the eedjies as "intel".
> To date not one Bahai institution has
> replied to my correspondence on the subject.
The one where you applied for CB-hood, or another one?
Best wishes!
Freethought110
Yes, Dannye. And she doesn't Paul Hammond or his friends on her list.
Eric Stetson
I'm not angry anymore. But some ex-Baha'is are angrier than I ever
was. One of the things that really astonished me when I started
talking with ex-Baha'is online was the level of anger. Some of these
people have really been HURT by the Baha'i Faith, and they consider it
a CULT without question. I never felt that way, but some do. Their
experiences in the religion seem to back up their feelings, from what
I've heard so far.
As for my own ex-Baha'i website and Yahoo group, which are the only
things I can control, I don't think they are permeated with anger, but
rational discourse. At least that is my hope.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> > Thank you, Eric.
> >
> > That's kind of what I thought - "We are so *over* being Baha'i"
> >
> > Just thought it was an odd kind of name, and it made me
> > curious.
> >
> > Do you know anything about the person running this list?
> >
> > Paul
>
>
> Yes, Dannye. And she doesn't Paul Hammond or his friends on her list.
Dannye is a very staunch ex-Baha'i and she created her list
specifically as a place for ex-Baha'is only to share things of a more
personal nature and to gain psychological and emotional support and
recovery from their involvement in the Baha'i Faith. She approves all
members before they can join. Basically, anyone who is not a
clear-cut ex-Baha'i is not allowed to join, as far as I understand it.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
> > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > > When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> > > gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> > > Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> > > such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> > > it.
> >
> > It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it.
>
> What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
> made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
My list is only "made up" in the sense that it puts in writing what a
lot of people know is the unwritten attitude of the Baha'i AO.
> From _my_ perspective, if we were to stratify various categories of people,
> surely the non-Baha'is would have more rights than the Baha'is who have lost
> their rights - it is a simply matter of trying out a simply hypothetical case!
Well, you may be right about that. Perhaps my list needs revision.
> Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
> list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
> say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
> prejudices.
I never said that this list is the current list used by Baha'i
institutions. I said this is something that could perhaps be codified
in the future. But I think we all know that my list is more
reflective of unwritten reality rather than preconceptions and
prejudices.
> > It's an
> > unwritten thing - everybody knows about it and everybody falls in with it.
>
> He made this one up. _Everybody_ knows that any non-Baha'i has the right to
> get married, and any Baha'i who has lost their administrative rights
> _does_not_
> have the right to get married. Yet, his list, shows,
>
> << 4. Baha'i with all administrative rights removed (Feast attendance,
> << voting, eligibility for election, contribution to Funds, contribution
> << to Huququ'llah, plus anything I'm forgetting to mention)
> << 5. non-Baha'i (never been a Baha'i)
>
> .. a mistake that a real Baha'i would not make.
Okay, so I guess I was wrong about that. My list needs to be changed.
But that doesn't invalidate the basic premise of what I was doing in
writing such a list, not one iota.
> Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own
> propaganda purpose.
Not so. My list is a fairly accurate representation of how the Baha'i
AO sees humanity as divided into different categories, some official
and some unofficial. My argument was that in a future Baha'i society,
such classifications would tend to become more official and codified
because the Baha'i government would need to determine how many rights
different types of people would have and to what degree they would be
treated as opponents of the state or opponents of the divine order in
society.
[snip]
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> in some way, this sort of vagueness, where Baha'is are left guessing who
> they think is "spiritually corrosive" by the administration's standards
> is actually more harmful than just listing the people they are talking
> about. That sort of vagueness breeds suspicion about anybody who is an
> ex-Baha'i or unenrolled Baha'i critic.
Agreed. The "UHJ" seems not to like to legislate or make anything
definitive, but instead to keep everything very vague when it suits
their purposes, such as keeping Baha'is as suspicious as possible. I
have always argued that if these people really were the Universal
House of Justice, they would act like it, i.e. pass legislation. They
hardly ever do. They act more like an ologarchic cult leader rather
than the Universal House of Justice envisioned by Baha'u'llah.
[snip]
> I have a hunch, Eric, just from what I've seen from you so far, that you'd
> fall pretty much in the same category as I do. If you stay active in
> cyberspace for a few years, you might find out this kind of stuff from
> people.
Yeah, time will tell.
> However, I've long thought that Haifa will eventually invent a new
> category, and that people will, at some point, be declared "enemies of
> the Faith" in an official way, as has been done in the past to
> covenant-breakers. They won't be shunned, of course, just "avoided". :-)
If the "unenrolled" movement goes on long enough and attracts enough
people, this might also become a new official category, schismatics
short of Covenant-breaker status.
Best,
Eric
Paul Hammond
Shame you didn't get Yoda's wisdom when you got his
speech impediment, isn't it, leaky?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> >
> > > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > > > When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> > > > gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> > > > Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> > > > such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it.
> >
> > What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
> > made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
>
> My list is only "made up" in the sense that it puts in writing what a
> lot of people know is the unwritten attitude of the Baha'i AO.
>
Invisible monstahs.
>
> > From _my_ perspective, if we were to stratify various categories of people,
> > surely the non-Baha'is would have more rights than the Baha'is who have lost
> > their rights - it is a simply matter of trying out a simply hypothetical case!
>
> Well, you may be right about that. Perhaps my list needs revision.
A letter from the AO would be a start.
>
> > Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
> > list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
> > say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
> > prejudices.
>
> I never said that this list is the current list used by Baha'i
> institutions. I said this is something that could perhaps be codified
> in the future.
Acknowledging that you've made it up, is a start, but using that list as a basis for commenting on the
BF, would be logically inconsistant with a list which you attribute to yourself.
"How's that for unity of all people, huh?"
This is really your comment on your _own_ beliefs since the list was _yours_.
> But I think we all know that my list is more
> reflective of unwritten reality rather than preconceptions and
> prejudices.
>
Sadly, you are talking invisble monstahs here, and you won't even acknowledge it. The way 'invisible
monstahs' works is as if a two year old and a four year old are sharing a bedroom. The four-year old
isn't ready for sleep, so she tells the two year old, "there are invisible monstahs under your bed!"
The two year old replies, "are not!". Four year old comes back, "look!". Two year old peeks under the
bed and says, "I don't see them!". Four year old says, "See, I told you they were invisible". Then she
says, "and there are invisible monstahs in the closet, too". Two year old says, "there are not". Four
year old says, "open the closet door and look". Two year old says, "I can't, cuz the monstahs under the
bed will eat me if I get out of bed to look".
>
> > > It's an
> > > unwritten thing - everybody knows about it and everybody falls in with it.
> >
> > He made this one up. _Everybody_ knows that any non-Baha'i has the right to
> > get married, and any Baha'i who has lost their administrative rights
> > _does_not_
> > have the right to get married. Yet, his list, shows,
> >
> > << 4. Baha'i with all administrative rights removed (Feast attendance,
> > << voting, eligibility for election, contribution to Funds, contribution
> > << to Huququ'llah, plus anything I'm forgetting to mention)
> > << 5. non-Baha'i (never been a Baha'i)
> >
> > .. a mistake that a real Baha'i would not make.
>
> Okay, so I guess I was wrong about that. My list needs to be changed.
> But that doesn't invalidate the basic premise of what I was doing in
> writing such a list, not one iota.
>
You didn't begin with much; bats are bugs, remember?
>
> > Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own
> > propaganda purpose.
>
> Not so. My list is a fairly accurate representation of how the Baha'i
> AO sees humanity as divided into different categories, some official
> and some unofficial.
W/ no documentation to that stratification, you can only gain what is conceded. I concede that Baha'is
shun covenant breakers, a known practice in these parts. After that, your list is your list. I'm even
inclined to see former Baha'is, as a class, as simply non-Baha'is.
> My argument was that in a future Baha'i society,
> such classifications would tend to become more official and codified
> because the Baha'i government would need to determine how many rights
> different types of people would have and to what degree they would be
> treated as opponents of the state or opponents of the divine order in
> society.
>
This is simply your speculation, reflective of your own prejudices and preconceptions.
You are not the first former Baha'i to seek some special status beyond "non-Baha'i". Let me tell you
how Darrick played his cards, so you can see how you, too, could get to be the subject of a letter from
the NSA!
Back in October 2000, continuing through May 2001, Darrick started the rumor on TRB that he had been
declared a CB. He got some of the friends to contact the US NSA, with questions on his status (BTW, he
had resigned).
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8re23c%24shc%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Interestingly, in May, as if he'd expected all his readers to have forgotten his previous hopes, he
added in cutely, "certainly news to me" on his rumor, even though it was six months after his previous
try.
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4ac0bf57.0105231322.38e026fc%40posting.google.com
At some point, the US NSA put up an informational statement about Darrick.
"The National Spiritual Assembly has received a number of
inquiries about Mr. Darrick Evenson who has made frequent
postings on the Internet about various Bahá’í -related subjects.
Mr. Evenson was formerly a Bahá’í . He withdrew his
membership in the Bahá’í Faith several years ago. The views
expressed by Mr. Evenson are his personal opinions and should
not be taken as the official position of the Bahá’í Faith."
(posted 01/04/2002)
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C37E0E1.54E8028E%40ameritel.net&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3C37E0E1.54E8028E%2540ameritel.net%26prev%3D/groups%253Fq%253DDarrick%252B%252522Covenant%252BBreaker%252522%2526hl%253Den%2526lr%253D%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526scoring%253Dd%2526start%253D10%2526sa%253DN
Then, in Jan02, Darrick says the ABMs are talking about him!
"I just heard from a Baha'i Youth that ABMs for
Protection are saying things about me to people
who inquire; things which they won't publish on
the Administrative Website (http://www.usbnc.org).
I'm curious as to what the ABMs are saying about
me. If it's true, I won't complain. But I want to see
if they are getting it right. In the past, they got it SO
WRONG it wasn't EVEN funny. Contact your ABM
for Protection and ask them about "Darrick Evenson"
and let us know what they say."
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4ac0bf57.0201121332.2058c965%40posting.google.com
As if, we on TRB and ARB, had not seen _why_ they'd have anything to say, as if we hadn't seen Darrick
prime the pump himself!
That is what I told Darrick
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C4250E9.23C8772F%40ameritel.net
So, if you want to be 'special', get the NSA to write letters about you, you need to stir the pot, like
Darrick did. Work at it shamelessly. Don't sweat it when your letter says nothing; the important thing
is that _you_ are the subject! You are special to the US NSA! Don't be just part of the mass of
non-Baha'is, form a category with Darrick, resignees who are the subject of letters at the US BNC!
Start today!
> [snip]
>
> Best,
> Eric
Best wishes,
Paul Hammond
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
> > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > > When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> > > gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> > > Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> > > such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> > > it.
> >
> > It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it.
>
> What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
> made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
>
It's a good basis for discussion. It is started interesting
conversation both here and on Eric's ex-Baha'i list.
Paul
>
> Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own propaganda
> purpose. It is no better than Fred's statement that Juan saw some letter from
> the NSA, forbidding Baha'is from peace demonstrations, or something like that.
>
Does Eric suggest otherwise?
His tongue might be to some extent in his cheek, but I haven't
seen where Eric thinks that his list has some kind of
official status, or that he has some ability to read the
minds of Baha'is.
Probably, the AO would say that self-appointed Guardians
shouldn't go around unilaterally declaring spiritually
corrosive Covenant Breakers - but it is something that
happens in the sociology of the Faith, even if there is
no central decision to create such a category.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> Eric Stetson wrote:
>
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > > > > When you see the Baha'i institutions come up with such a list of
> > > > > gradiations, then you see that they have done what you charge them with.
> > > > > Until then, it only looks like _your_ list. The implications of making
> > > > > such a stratification, falls on you, since you are the one who has made
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > It goes on - you know, I know it, the institutions know it.
> > >
> > > What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
> > > made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
> >
> > My list is only "made up" in the sense that it puts in writing what a
> > lot of people know is the unwritten attitude of the Baha'i AO.
> >
>
> Invisible monstahs.
>
> >
> > > From _my_ perspective, if we were to stratify various categories of people,
> > > surely the non-Baha'is would have more rights than the Baha'is who have lost
> > > their rights - it is a simply matter of trying out a simply hypothetical case!
> >
> > Well, you may be right about that. Perhaps my list needs revision.
>
> A letter from the AO would be a start.
I'm sorry, but Pat - are you *really* saying that if
it doesn't exist in writing from the AO, then it
doesn't exist?
>
> >
> > > Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
> > > list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
> > > say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
> > > prejudices.
> >
> > I never said that this list is the current list used by Baha'i
> > institutions. I said this is something that could perhaps be codified
> > in the future.
>
> Acknowledging that you've made it up, is a start, but using that list as a basis for commenting on the
> BF, would be logically inconsistant with a list which you attribute to yourself.
Why?
Paul
Paul Hammond
Sounds a little bit like Karen's "unenrolled Baha'i" group,
but with different membership criteria.
Karen still thinks of herself as a Baha'i, so she doesn't
insist that people have left the faith conclusively
before they join. But she does keep her list free
from people trying to belittle other's experiences,
or argue that they didn't happen, or go on long
tirades praising the Baha'i administration and
blaming the people who have suffered under it.
Karen sees her list as a support group for people
who have had bad experiences in the faith. Dannye
appears to be doing much the same kind of thing
from her own perspective of having decided to
leave entirely, rather than just resigning from
official membership as Karen has.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 30/8/03 11:51 am:
As a "Disappointed Atheist" you dont qualify for either Paul. Unless you are
at that old Hikmat game, which Susan Maneck is a specialist in explaining.
Errol
>
> Paul
errol9
>> A letter from the AO would be a start.
>
> I'm sorry, but Pat - are you *really* saying that if
> it doesn't exist in writing from the AO, then it
> doesn't exist?
Tut Tut, dont you two be disagreeing now, Susan would not approve.
Remember the three Musketeer's motto, all for one and one for all.
Errol
Paul Hammond
Errol,
Fuck off. The grown ups are talking now.
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> >
> > > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> (snip)
>
> >
> > Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own propaganda
> > purpose. It is no better than Fred's statement that Juan saw some letter from
> > the NSA, forbidding Baha'is from peace demonstrations, or something like that.
> >
>
> Does Eric suggest otherwise?
>
Perhaps I misunderstood. It did seem to me that he was judging the Baha'i community with his parting
shot of, "How's that for unity of all people, huh?" To me, it seems he is trying to assign the moral
weight of his list, to the Baha'i community. Until he finds a letter from the AO resembling his list,
his list is the product of his mind. It reflects his projections and prejudices. To my mind, the
possibility that it resonates with your impression, or Dermod's or Karen's, doesn't make it
representative of the Baha'i community. Sometimes the things counted as common knowledge really are
accurate, and sometimes the things which get excused as common knowledge, are simply commonly held
prejudices which are really mistakes.
I don't like arguments which require strong appeals to prejudice.
>
> His tongue might be to some extent in his cheek, but I haven't
> seen where Eric thinks that his list has some kind of
> official status, or that he has some ability to read the
> minds of Baha'is.
>
To me, it looks like he is trying to have it both ways, making up the list, but judging the Baha'is by
it.
>
> Probably, the AO would say that self-appointed Guardians
> shouldn't go around unilaterally declaring spiritually
> corrosive Covenant Breakers - but it is something that
> happens in the sociology of the Faith,
... and I think everyone knows how I feel about that to, hmmm, maybe Eric doesn't know how I feel about
that.
Eric, when I encounter self-appointed Guardians among the Baha'is in good standing, I wriggle my ears at
them, and stick out my tongue, until they leave the forum, or resign from the BF. Then they complain
about how they were driven from the faith. Hmmm, maybe you have heard about it?
> even if there is
> no central decision to create such a category.
Well, we don't need a central body to create the category of "Self-Appointed Guardians Among the Baha'is
in Good Standing"; those w/in the category won't believe it, and just about everyone else recognizes
when they've done it. I suppose we don't need to catorize them as Baha'is as they don't seem to stay in
that pose for very long. Has SeekerAlfa ever come back to Beliefnet's Challenge board?
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F500D97...@ameritel.net>...
> > Eric Stetson wrote:
> >
> > > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > > >
> (snip)
> > > >
> > > > What "I know" would include Eric's list being wrong. Hi9s list is a list he
> > > > made up. Can anyone even acknowledging the plain fact?
> > >
> > > My list is only "made up" in the sense that it puts in writing what a
> > > lot of people know is the unwritten attitude of the Baha'i AO.
> > >
> >
> > Invisible monstahs.
> >
> > >
> > > > From _my_ perspective, if we were to stratify various categories of people,
> > > > surely the non-Baha'is would have more rights than the Baha'is who have lost
> > > > their rights - it is a simply matter of trying out a simply hypothetical case!
> > >
> > > Well, you may be right about that. Perhaps my list needs revision.
> >
> > A letter from the AO would be a start.
>
> I'm sorry, but Pat - are you *really* saying that if
> it doesn't exist in writing from the AO, then it
> doesn't exist?
Knowing what I know now, that is exactly the position I must take. On this forum right here, I see rumours
circulated about how the NSA forbids the recitation of some prayer, an assertion which was so easily
verifiable, I would not have guessed that anyone would make this up. W/in the past month, Fred repeats,
from the same source, a rumour that an NSA has forbid Baha'is from participating in peace demonstrations,
and when George gives him a link to a letter from the UK NSA which explicitly says they are _not_ forbidding
Baha'is from peace demonstrations, it gets counted as more evidence of the conspiracy, as if it had said the
opposite of what it actually says.
These people will tell me that the UHJ, or the NSA has said the exact opposite of what the UHJ or the NSA
has actually said. Having the letter in hand is the only way to see how these people have either lied to
all who would hear, or, in the delusion of their preconceptions they repeat what they believe, despite the
contradicting evidence that they cite.
>
> > > > Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
> > > > list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
> > > > say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
> > > > prejudices.
> > >
> > > I never said that this list is the current list used by Baha'i
> > > institutions. I said this is something that could perhaps be codified
> > > in the future.
> >
> > Acknowledging that you've made it up, is a start, but using that list as a basis for commenting on the
> > BF, would be logically inconsistant with a list which you attribute to yourself.
>
> Why?
If I said that Fenians were lazy drunks, and cited common knowledge, would that reflect on them, or on me?
If I said, "suppose Fenians were lazy drunks", and then I commented, "what kind of warriors could a bunch of
drunks really be?", would my comment have anything at all to do w/ Irish people, or, would it really be
telling something about me?
When someone makes something up, regardless of whether it may seem plausible to an audience, the fabrication
does not reflect the reality of the world. It reflects the reality of its author, since that is where it
originated.
Best wishes!
Paul Hammond
Well. Error and Freddie - that's one thing.
But, Eric always gave me the impression of actually
knowing his ass from his elbow.
You've got a chance to reason with him. He seems to
have a fair grasp of reality in my estimation.
> These people will tell me that the UHJ, or the NSA has said the exact opposite of what the UHJ or the NSA
> has actually said. Having the letter in hand is the only way to see how these people have either lied to
> all who would hear, or, in the delusion of their preconceptions they repeat what they believe, despite the
> contradicting evidence that they cite.
>
>
> >
> > > > > Eric doesn't have a letter from the Baha'i institutions putting out such a
> > > > > list, and the list he posted simply reflects his own preconceptions. Thus, I
> > > > > say, whatever prejudices his list would be symptomatic of, are _his_
> > > > > prejudices.
> > > >
> > > > I never said that this list is the current list used by Baha'i
> > > > institutions. I said this is something that could perhaps be codified
> > > > in the future.
> > >
> > > Acknowledging that you've made it up, is a start, but using that list as a basis for commenting on the
> > > BF, would be logically inconsistant with a list which you attribute to yourself.
> >
> > Why?
>
> If I said that Fenians were lazy drunks, and cited common knowledge, would that reflect on them, or on me?
>
Well, I'm beginning to see your point from your other post - but,
the point of discussion would be, how far does Eric's list
reflect a reality amongst the majority of Baha'is?
There is room for disagreement about how fair his discription
of these categories is - but then, the fact that *you* stand
up to self-appointed Guardians is anecdotal too. I think
that you might well be in the minority amongst Baha'is.
> If I said, "suppose Fenians were lazy drunks", and then I commented, "what kind of warriors could a bunch of
> drunks really be?", would my comment have anything at all to do w/ Irish people, or, would it really be
> telling something about me?
>
> When someone makes something up, regardless of whether it may seem plausible to an audience, the fabrication
> does not reflect the reality of the world. It reflects the reality of its author, since that is where it
> originated.
>
Okay. But, that means that the next subject for discussion
has to be how far Eric's parody reflects the realities of
Baha'i experience.
It's not only Eric that has experienced these divisions
and categories.
I think that Eric's list is provoking interesting
discussions in most of the places where he has posted
it - which makes it a good post, to my mind.
Paul
John R MacLeod
> W/in the past month, Fred repeats,
> from the same source, a rumour that an NSA has forbid Baha'is from
participating in peace demonstrations,
> and when George gives him a link to a letter from the UK NSA which
explicitly says they are _not_ forbidding
> Baha'is from peace demonstrations, it gets counted as more evidence of the
conspiracy, as if it had said the
> opposite of what it actually says.
>
summarise them in ways that sometimes contradict their exact meaning.
However in the context of this discussion and specifically in relation to
the large demonstrations against the invasion of the Iraq there is some
truth in what Errol claimed.
The paragraph in the UK NSA letter that said
" In the current situation, the overarching principle is that the Baha'i
Faith does not take
sides in conflicts between countries. Participating in a march or
demonstration for or against military action in another country presupposes
taking sides."
was certainly taken as forbidding Baha'is to take part in those
demonstrations and I assure you from personal experience that Baha'i
institutions when queried about it did in fact interpret it as a prohibition
against even individual Baha'is being associated with opposition or support
for that particular war.
I personally simply do not agree with the UK NSA that "Participating in a
march or demonstration for or against military action in another country
presupposes taking sides" but that was their ruling. It was applied to all
manner of 'protests' such as signing petitions as well as marches.
errol9
jrma...@consultant.com wrote on 31/8/03 6:42 am:
Thank you John,
Sometinme it takes others to point out to Pat, because he thinks all I write
is in error. But thats Pats problem.
Ones wonders what the UK NSA and the UHJ will say about this new evidence
just released one of their Bahais was complely in favour with going to war
with Iraq. While Barney Leith wrote the above letter I wonder what he will
say If Lord Hutton asks him outright did he support DR Kelly article below.
Errol
What Kelly really thought about the war in Iraq
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032772,00.html
Revealed: How Kelly article set out case for war in Iraq
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032698,00.html
Full text of Kellys article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html
Two Comprehensive Intros to the Bahai Wars
EVIDENCE grows... Dr. David Kelly & the Baha'i Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
For those interested in understanding what's taking place
regarding the Bahai Wars, on talk.religion.bahai as elsewhere,
I urge you to read some of the primary material on my website
and the sites of Professor Cole and Karen Bacquet:
Professor Juan Cole's "Fundamentalism in the Contemporary
U.S. Baha'i Community," Religious Studies Review 2002:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
Karen Bacquet, "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha'i
Community." American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal,
Volume 18, pp. 109-140:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html
"The Bahai Technique":
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
--------------------------------------------------------
talk.religion.bahai on the Web:
Free reading and posting, including the largest Usenet archive:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=talk.religion.bahai
>
>
John R MacLeod
>
> Ones wonders what the UK NSA and the UHJ will say about this new evidence
> just released one of their Bahais was complely in favour with going to war
> with Iraq. While Barney Leith wrote the above letter I wonder what he
will
> say If Lord Hutton asks him outright did he support DR Kelly article
below.
I doubt very much if Lord Hutton will ask such a question. I also think
that the NSA and probably even the UHJ are well aware that many individual
Baha'is had strong views and quite a few expressed them publicly.
Incidentally, I think the NSA's letter came out relatively late in the
proceedings.
By and large I would say neither Lord Hutton or the British public are going
to be much interested in what Barney has to say. In fact I don't think the
British Public have much interest in Dr Kelly at all even though the enquiry
is strictly about the circumstances of his death. What is fascinating
people is the insight into Blair and his team and how they worked.
errol9
jrma...@consultant.com wrote on 31/8/03 12:59 pm:
I think the main interest from non-bahais regards Dr Kelly's suicide will
the duel approach to the actual act by the Bahai Faith's writings. This is
what caused media interest at the time of Kellys death and may create
interest again.
20. Is suicide ever justifiable?
Our religion forbids suicide, but there have been many Bahá'í martyrs who
knowingly went to their deaths. One reason not to commit suicide is because
of the harm it can do to the spirit. Shoghi Effendi says that
'Suicide is forbidden in the Cause. God Who is the Author of all life can
alone take it away, and dispose of it in the way He deems best. Whoever
commits suicide endangers his soul, and will suffer spiritually as a result
in the other Worlds Beyond.... '
Lights of Guidance, No. 677, p. 204
There was one prominent Bahá'í, Nabil, who drowned himself shortly after the
death of Bahá'u'lláh in 1892. However, his action is neither condemned nor
viewed as a role model. Shoghi Effendi explained that "Nabil's suicide was
not insanity but love. He loved Bahá'u'lláh too much to go on in a world
that no longer held Him." (Unfolding Destiny, Page 406)
http://bahai-library.org/essays/ethics.survey/
But like you say John the main interest is on the inner workings of the
Blair government. There is no doubt for the first time in British political
history has a Prime Minister acted so blatantly like a US President,(with a
chosen non-elected hand picked team as his advisors) ignoring the elected
members of his own front bench. A bit scary indeed.
Errol
>
>
Pat Kohli
John R MacLeod wrote:
Sure, the letter did seem to me to be _discouraging_ Baha'is from simply
springing out into the streets to denounce aggression, and plant flowers in gun
barrels. I think the tone is appropriate due to the natural inclination to set
the world right for peace and justice. I think the NSA wants to encourage some
thought about what the friends will do in this area.
1) The basic orientation of the Baha'i outlook is against the pre-emptive
and narrowly based sort of aggression which some proposed at that time. Baha'is
may have been tempted to publicly denounce the these pre-emption proposals as
contrary to the teachings of Baha'u'llah and though this conclusion is something
I find agreeable, I would also be alarmed about it being presented this way in
public where it may be employed in the partisan aspects of this debate, and
forgotten in 2 years when other parties hold power and seek to wield it against
other foreign enemies.
2) Some of these demonstrations were sponsored by political parties, and
were used as recruiting opportunities by such. For example, the local Greens
likely octupled their membership by sponsoring a few peace rallies over the past
year, and passing out a few brochures. I'd think Baha'is should be cautious
about participating in rallies that present themselves as the members of some
political party, even the Greens.
3) I don't see the NSA as forbidding participation in peace demonstrations.
I think they wanted to remind the friends of guidelines for contructive
expression in the face of a lot of excitement.
Paul Hammond
Yes, Odd that.
I've just posted a link to the same article.
Perhaps, while you are giving us the benefit of your
crocodile tears on behalf of his wife, having trashed
Doctor Kelly's reputation in public all over the
net, and made up any number of conspiracy theories
about him, you'll spare a moment or two to give us
your reasons for calling Dr Kelly a traitor?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F510EFB...@ameritel.net>...
> > Paul Hammond wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but Pat - are you *really* saying that if
> > > it doesn't exist in writing from the AO, then it
> > > doesn't exist?
> >
> > Knowing what I know now, that is exactly the position I must take. On this forum right here, I see rumours
> > circulated about how the NSA forbids the recitation of some prayer, an assertion which was so easily
> > verifiable, I would not have guessed that anyone would make this up. W/in the past month, Fred repeats,
> > from the same source, a rumour that an NSA has forbid Baha'is from participating in peace demonstrations,
> > and when George gives him a link to a letter from the UK NSA which explicitly says they are _not_ forbidding
> > Baha'is from peace demonstrations, it gets counted as more evidence of the conspiracy, as if it had said the
> > opposite of what it actually says.
> >
>
> Well. Error and Freddie - that's one thing.
>
> But, Eric always gave me the impression of actually
> knowing his ass from his elbow.
>
Eric certainly is far more personable and communicative than both of those two put together. Yet, consider that
Fred's source for the recent rumour, is not Error, but a tenured professor who I dare not name, lest I be slapped
down by a half a dozen people for unrelentingly picking on him. That guy is even more personable and
communicative than Our Fair Virginia Youth. Sure, the obvious internet kooks are more often wrong than right, but
even respected segments of society can be really wrong, too.
>
> You've got a chance to reason with him. He seems to
> have a fair grasp of reality in my estimation.
>
That's what I'm trying to do.
>
> > These people will tell me that the UHJ, or the NSA has said the exact opposite of what the UHJ or the NSA
> > has actually said. Having the letter in hand is the only way to see how these people have either lied to
> > all who would hear, or, in the delusion of their preconceptions they repeat what they believe, despite the
> > contradicting evidence that they cite.
> >
> >
> (snip)
> >
>
> Well, I'm beginning to see your point from your other post -
One always risks the wrath of the Leprachauns when using drunkeness to make a point. I'm glad you could see it
_somewhere_
> but,
> the point of discussion would be, how far does Eric's list
> reflect a reality amongst the majority of Baha'is?
>
That is hard to say without a survey which was carefully drawn up to measure that, and administered in some way to
control for an even distribution of the Baha'i population.
>
> There is room for disagreement about how fair his discription
> of these categories is - but then, the fact that *you* stand
> up to self-appointed Guardians is anecdotal too. I think
> that you might well be in the minority amongst Baha'is.
>
I should hope it doesn't take too many ogres to scare the sane trolls into sublimating their true feelings, and
exposing the not so sane one as the fringe loonies they really are. Furthermore, I was certainly not the only one
who jumped on SeekerAlfa. In fact, I don't recall that I even had much of a chance. I think Steve took a piece
out of him right at the get-go. I think Dave Fiorito got him too, and probably some of the others over there.
When it came to HWNWNBM, I was actually a johnny-come-lately to that scene. I remember Dermd teasing me about how
HWNWNBM had posted hundreds of messages before I made my first complaint.
Given a chance, I think Baha'is don't tolerate fat-heads enthusiastically.
>
> > If I said, "suppose Fenians were lazy drunks", and then I commented, "what kind of warriors could a bunch of
> > drunks really be?", would my comment have anything at all to do w/ Irish people, or, would it really be
> > telling something about me?
> >
> > When someone makes something up, regardless of whether it may seem plausible to an audience, the fabrication
> > does not reflect the reality of the world. It reflects the reality of its author, since that is where it
> > originated.
> >
>
> Okay. But, that means that the next subject for discussion
> has to be how far Eric's parody reflects the realities of
> Baha'i experience.
>
There are anecdotes available, and hypothetical extensions of the rules which are known. Yet, some of the
anecdotes, like Steve Mading's, suggest that the rules don't go to far when a given case would push the rule
against some principle.
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bioef1%24r6t%241%40news.doit.wisc.edu
>
> It's not only Eric that has experienced these divisions
> and categories.
>
Has Eric experienced himself being categorized in manners other than Baha'i or non-Baha'i?
>
> I think that Eric's list is provoking interesting
> discussions in most of the places where he has posted
> it - which makes it a good post, to my mind.
Perhaps. I also think the shoe could readily be put on the other foot. One might borrow from Nima, Dannye, or
others who have resigned, and stratify things
1. Ex
2. Disgruntled
3. Inactive
4. Pedestrian member
5. Remeyite
6. Outspoken loyalist
7. Sibling of ex-AO member
8. Ex-AO member
9. AO member
Does this sort of construct foster understanding? For me, it does not; I would hope that no one would confuse my
preumption of an resigned-Baha'i perspective in cobbing this together, should give this any credence whatsoever.
I could be wrong, though.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel/net
John R MacLeod
>
> Sure, the letter did seem to me to be _discouraging_ Baha'is from simply
> springing out into the streets to denounce aggression, and plant flowers
in gun
> barrels. I think the tone is appropriate due to the natural inclination
to set
> the world right for peace and justice. I think the NSA wants to encourage
some
> thought about what the friends will do in this area.
> 1) The basic orientation of the Baha'i outlook is against the
pre-emptive and narrowly based sort of aggression which some proposed at
that time.
I can't agree with you about the tone of the letter. There is nothing to
suggest that "...... Baha'i outlook is against the pre-emptive and narrowly
based sort of aggression ...." . On the contrary "the overarching principle
is that the Bahaši Faith does not take sides in conflicts between countries"
a principle that logically extended suggests we could not have supported
e.g. Poland when invaded by Hitler's Germany or Kuwait when invaded by
Saddam's Iraq.
What I can assure you is that in practice, presumably with the NSA's
knowledge, any expression of opinion on the issue was strongly discouraged
to say the least. The kind of examples I am thinking of are for example a
Baha'i body which was a member of a respectable InterFaith body being told
not to sign a document which merely called for the UK to follow the United
Nations on the matter.
I'm not saying the NSA were wrong though I can't follow their reasons
myself. All I am saying is that this letter was taken to mean that all
expression of opposition (or support though I think that wasn't an issue as
there wasn't much support) to the war was effectively forbidden. If the
NSA had not wished to give that impression, I believe they had ample
opportunity to correct it so I assume they were happy with that.
The tone of the letter is quite simply that we should have no views on such
matters.
"Bahašis who are asked for the Bahaši position on the Middle East situation
should respond that the Bahaši Faith does not take positions on particular
crises or conflicts"
***** Bahai Faith *****
and quietly or tacitly encouraged Kelly to do nothing to prevent
the Blair government from going forward. I believe the uhj's
ACTIONS, through its directives, corroborate such suspicion.
--
EVIDENCE grows... Dr. David Kelly & the Baha'i Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BB77871E.36758%err...@ntlworld.com...
Adelard Rubangura
I strongly believe the AO doesn't think you are stupid, instead it seems you
just don't have much faith to the Words of Baha'u'llah. The Covenant of
Baha'u'llah calls to all Believers to obey the Institutions and you don't.
It's just a lack of faith in my opinion.
> I actually regard them in very much the same light!
It's really too bad, you think of the AO like that.
God Bless
Adelard
Pat Kohli
John R MacLeod wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F520A08...@ameritel.net...
> >
> > Sure, the letter did seem to me to be _discouraging_ Baha'is from simply
> > springing out into the streets to denounce aggression, and plant flowers
> in gun
> > barrels. I think the tone is appropriate due to the natural inclination
> to set
> > the world right for peace and justice. I think the NSA wants to encourage
> some
> > thought about what the friends will do in this area.
> > 1) The basic orientation of the Baha'i outlook is against the
> pre-emptive and narrowly based sort of aggression which some proposed at
> that time.
>
> I can't agree with you about the tone of the letter. There is nothing to
> suggest that "...... Baha'i outlook is against the pre-emptive and narrowly
> based sort of aggression ...." .
I did not mean to suggest that was _in_ the letter. I was trying to say that I
understood the letter to be addressing that exuberant inclination, perhaps with
the intent of moderating it.
> On the contrary "the overarching principle
> is that the Bahaši Faith does not take sides in conflicts between countries"
> a principle that logically extended suggests we could not have supported
> e.g. Poland when invaded by Hitler's Germany or Kuwait when invaded by
> Saddam's Iraq.
>
Of course we don't take sides in conflicts between countries. In this case,
there was no threat of Iraq invading the UK or the US. To me it didn't seem at
all like the NATO/Warsaw Pact, but that is my opinion.
>
> What I can assure you is that in practice, presumably with the NSA's
> knowledge, any expression of opinion on the issue was strongly discouraged
> to say the least. The kind of examples I am thinking of are for example a
> Baha'i body which was a member of a respectable InterFaith body being told
> not to sign a document which merely called for the UK to follow the United
> Nations on the matter.
>
I think it is useful to draw the distinction between what individual Baha'is do,
and what the Baha'is are doing as a community. Though you and I may see the
question as entirely clear cut, that may not be the case when the entire
community is surveyed. We as a community do stand for certain principles,
regardless of whether or not we as a community see any given case as an exmple
of those principles. Evenso, you, me or anyone other Baha'i, is free as an
individual to express their concerns about war-mongering, or international
agression etc. in any particular case. The thing is, that it would be very easy
to jump up and say, "Baha'u'llah condemns just this sort of thing", and that is
an error that I think the NSA was concerned about.
>
> I'm not saying the NSA were wrong though I can't follow their reasons
> myself. All I am saying is that this letter was taken to mean that all
> expression of opposition (or support though I think that wasn't an issue as
> there wasn't much support) to the war was effectively forbidden.
Obviously, I can't assess the mood of the community in the UK. I read the
letter to be advising caution to individuals, and I think it was right that we
as Baha'is, did not take a stand one way or the other.
> If the
> NSA had not wished to give that impression, I believe they had ample
> opportunity to correct it so I assume they were happy with that.
>
If it were their intention to simply keep Baha'is from jumping up and saying
"Baha'u'llah condemns this", or "the Baha'i faith is against that" then they
probably achieved their purpose. If they did not intend to forbid all Baha'is
from participating in any peace demonstrations, I think it would be hard for
them to assess this as an un-intended consequences.
>
> The tone of the letter is quite simply that we should have no views on such
> matters.
>
> "Bahašis who are asked for the Bahaši position on the Middle East situation
> should respond that the Bahaši Faith does not take positions on particular
> crises or conflicts"
I think there is a fair distinction between views which you are I (who happen to
be Baha'is) hold in regards to issues of the day, and the views of the faith at
large. I would not want to presume that my views are The Baha'i Views.
Eric Stetson
> When someone makes something up, regardless of whether it may seem plausible
> to an audience, the fabrication does not reflect the reality of the world.
> It reflects the reality of its author, since that is where it
> originated.
Pat, the problem is, if you go back and re-read my original post you
will see that I never claimed that the 12 categories of people I
identified are actually current official categories used by the Baha'i
Faith organization. I specifically said that currently there are only
four official categories: BIGS, Baha'i on administrative probation,
non-Baha'i, and Covenant-breaker. Then I went on to put forward my
own list of 12 categories which I said is a fairly accurate
representation of the way many Baha'is see the world today and could
perhaps become official in the future, especially in a future Baha'i
state (if such a thing ever exists). Therefore, the claim you make
about my list of categories being something "made up" that only
reflects "the reality of its author" is simply inaccurate. I never
said this was the official list; I said it is a reflection of some
typical attitudes of Baha'is that have not yet become official. So
it's not made up, nor does it reflect my own prejudices. It is just
my observation of attitudes I have seen among many Baha'is, which many
others have also observed.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> Eric always gave me the impression of actually
> knowing his ass from his elbow.
>
> You've got a chance to reason with him. He seems to
> have a fair grasp of reality in my estimation.
Thank you for realizing this, Paul. I am not some kind of irrational
anti-Baha'i hatemonger as some people might want to believe about me.
I think my record of posting here shows that pretty clearly. I always
strive to consider all reasonable arguments and am willing to modify
my viewpoint if logic and evidence warrants the change.
> the point of discussion would be, how far does Eric's list
> reflect a reality amongst the majority of Baha'is?
[snip]
> the next subject for discussion
> has to be how far Eric's parody reflects the realities of
> Baha'i experience.
Exactly.
> It's not only Eric that has experienced these divisions
> and categories.
Exactly.
Best,
Eric
errol9
The silverytounged Disappointed Atheist Paul needs a mouthwash, or maybe his
nappy needs changed. Help Karen, your cyber-toyboy has crapped his pants.
Errol
Paul Hammond
> But like you say John the main interest is on the inner workings of the
> Blair government. There is no doubt for the first time in British political
> history has a Prime Minister acted so blatantly like a US President,(with a
> chosen non-elected hand picked team as his advisors) ignoring the elected
> members of his own front bench. A bit scary indeed.
>
> Errol
>
>
There are more checks and balances in the American system
than in the British system. British Prime Ministers have
always had much more power than American Presidents in
relation to their system.
AMerican Presidents often have to do deals to get their
legislation through. Except in the case of hung parliaments
and minority governments, British Prime Ministers are always
leader of the majority party, and can usually vote through
what they want so long as their own party supports them.
American congress and house of representatives have
much more independent power than British back benchers
have.
Note that in Blair's evidence, he was saying that he
would have preferred the inquiry to go through the
Intelligence Committee rather than the Foreign
Affairs Select Committe - one of the reasons for
this was that the PM directly appoints the ISC,
and they report to him.
Paul
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F510EFB...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > When someone makes something up, regardless of whether it may seem plausible
> > to an audience, the fabrication does not reflect the reality of the world.
> > It reflects the reality of its author, since that is where it
> > originated.
>
> Pat, the problem is, if you go back and re-read my original post you
> will see that I never claimed that the 12 categories of people I
> identified are actually current official categories used by the Baha'i
> Faith organization.
Well, no, that is not the problem in the explicit manner, since, were you to go back and read my remarks
in the thread, you'd see I've conceded that you've acknowledged that you've made it up; it was what you
did w/ it after you made it up which led me to conclude you were taking your fabrication too seriously.
>>>> Acknowledging that you've made it up, is a start,
>>>> but using that list as a basis for commenting on the
>>>> BF, would be logically inconsistant with a list
>>>> which you attribute to yourself.
>>>>
>>>> > "How's that for unity of all people, huh?"
>>>> This is really your comment on your _own_
>>>> beliefs since the list was _yours_.
When you both caricature a party, and then criticize your caricature as if it were that caricatured
party, you have criticized yourself, rather than the traget of your caricature, since it is the
caricature you are condemning, and that is something which _you_ made.
Do you understand the fallacy of the strawman arguement? Remember "Bats are bugs", the 'Calvin and
Hobbs' report with 'made-up' facts?
> I specifically said that currently there are only
> four official categories: BIGS, Baha'i on administrative probation,
> non-Baha'i, and Covenant-breaker. Then I went on to put forward my
> own list of 12 categories which I said is a fairly accurate
> representation of the way many Baha'is see the world today and could
> perhaps become official in the future, especially in a future Baha'i
> state (if such a thing ever exists).
I remember.
> Therefore,
No no no no. Not "Therefore"; not yet. You forgot what you posted. There was something else.
Remember that.
> the claim you make
> about my list of categories being something "made up" that only
> reflects "the reality of its author" is simply inaccurate.
Well, if you make up a list, it certainly does refelct on you.
> I never
> said this was the official list;
Well, if you said it was an official list, it would do more than refelct on you, wouldn't it?
> I said it is a reflection of some
> typical attitudes of Baha'is that have not yet become official.
And you are entitled to speculate.
> So
> it's not made up,
Of course it is made up! Sheeeeeesh, this is not rocket science. Why does it have to be like pulling
teeth? You made up that list yourself. You had even claimed to have done it, and in the middle of this
message I'm replying to, you even acknowledged that you'd made up the list.
<< Then I went on to put forward my own list of 12 categories which I said ...
> nor does it reflect my own prejudices.
Of course it reflects your prejudices. It doesn't reflect my prejudices. You are projecting how you
suppose Baha'is might view people. You certainly aren't claiming to hold that list as your own
perspective - you can't even claim credit for making that list up for five minutes straight. That list
is part of your sense of how Baha'is think; I think you've already said that.
> It is just
> my observation of attitudes I have seen among many Baha'is, which many
> others have also observed.
>
An observation would be along the vein of, "I went to see my old pal from the UVA Baha'i club. He was
hosting a fireside. He asked me to leave because I was an ex-Baha'i". See how that works, you observe
something, then you have an observation. Lemme take that another step for you, so you might see what
you have. "Since my friend asked me to leave, even when these Baha'is and non-Baha'is were coming over,
I infer that my standing w/ the Baha'is is lower than that of a non-Baha'i, but, since they will talk to
me, I guess they don't see me as a CB." Let me highlight the differences here between the observation,
and the conclusion. In the observation, I have observable facts; a third party could watch the whole
thing, and they would observe the same thing I observed - I was asked to leave. When I draw a
conclusion, I interpret those facts with my own prior experience and knowledge. Someone else who
observed the same incident could have drawn _entirely_ different conclusions. For example, I could have
been a notorious pig, going to school with this guy with last week's burgers still wiped on my shirt,
sweat stains, halitosis, etc. Another observer, who lacked my background knowledge, specifically not
knowing that my pal is cool with my grotesque pigginess, and having seen me get asked to leave, would
have _concluded_ that it was due to me being a pig. See, the conclusion is not like the observation.
For you to have observed that the Baha'is have a dozen or so layers, you would need a letter from the
AO. What you have shared, is a conclusion, not an observation. A conclusion reflects your inferences
on the matter.
Rod
A week of flu has reduced me to sufficient state of boordom.
Amongst all...this bollocks caught my attention.
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F510C07...@ameritel.net>...
> Paul Hammond wrote:
>
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > (snip)
> >
> > >
> > > Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own
> > >propaganda purpose. It is no better than Fred's statement that Juan saw some letter from
> > > the NSA, forbidding Baha'is from peace demonstrations, or something like that.
> > >
> >
> > Does Eric suggest otherwise?
> >
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood. It did seem to me that he was judging the Baha'i >community with his parting shot of, "How's that for unity of all people, huh?" To me, it seems he is trying to assign the moral
> weight of his list, to the Baha'i community.
Yes, that's how I read it- 'to the Baha'i community'...not to the
AO.
> Until he finds a letter from the AO resembling his list,
> his list is the product of his mind. It reflects his projections and >prejudices.
No, there was no suggestion (that I saw) to indicate the list
reflected
Baha'i 'policy'....rather (as you have already observed) the 'moral
weight' sheets home to the 'community' and to the culture it has
developed/
embraced.
> To my mind, the
> possibility that it resonates with your impression, or Dermod's or Karen's, doesn't make it
> representative of the Baha'i community.
That's right Pat.....And it would not/does not matter how much
substantive
evidence is put before you to confirm these 'impressions'...denial
rules.
Tell me Pat...was it just my 'impression' that I was designated an
'Enemy
of the Faith' and a 'violator of the Covenant' by the BIGS denizens of
Bnet and TRB? Was it my 'impression' that it took two years to leaver
any
justification for the accusation? My 'impression' that when eventualy
forthcomming my sin was revealed to have been the online description
of
a defunct LSA as "dysfunctional"? My 'impression' that among the BIGS
defenders of the Faith only you and Dave F raised any objections and
these
fell overwhellmed (at least ten to two) by those prepared to proffer
allegation
without substantiation? Was it my 'impression' that exactly the same
preparedness to lable a community member 'Enemy of the Faith' was
played
out here by the DST and Co?
And what Pat?.....You want a letter from the AO that confirms this is
Baha'i policy?.....You are not content with the clear and
unequivocable
evidence that it is an ingrained aspect of Baha'i community culture?
> Sometimes the things counted as common knowledge really are
> accurate, and sometimes the things which get excused as common knowledge, are > simply commonly held prejudices which are really mistakes.
And sometimes the 'common knowledge' is demonstrable and subject to
substantiation. This is just such a case....the evidence is here on
these
boards, on the Bnet boards, all over the Net. The preparedness of
Baha'is
to designate (without authorization or justification) other community
membes as 'Enemies of the Faith' is beyond question. You yourself have
raised (albiet brief and lacklustre;-) objection to such behaviour.
We do not need a letter from the AO to confirm this is policy...we
need
some posts from BIGS Baha'is recognizing that it is common
practice...only
then will the culture of denial begin to deminish.
> I don't like arguments which require strong appeals to prejudice.
I don't like arguements which reflect weak denials of that which is
clear, evident and demonstrable.
Nor those that are so evasive that they seek a letter of AO
confirmation
for a list of cultural class divisions within the community.
> >
> > His tongue might be to some extent in his cheek, but I haven't
> > seen where Eric thinks that his list has some kind of
> > official status, or that he has some ability to read the
> > minds of Baha'is.
> >
>
> To me, it looks like he is trying to have it both ways, making up the list, > > but judging the Baha'is by it.
??????????????????? What!?
The Baha'i community is judged by its general behaviour (online and
off)
and the 'list' (valid and accurate IMHO) is drawn from those
behaviours.
(You don't have to "read the minds of Baha'is" you only have to read
their
posts...and the 'list' is confirmed and validated).
> >
> > Probably, the AO would say that self-appointed Guardians
> > shouldn't go around unilaterally declaring spiritually
> > corrosive Covenant Breakers - but it is something that
> > happens in the sociology of the Faith,
>
> ... and I think everyone knows how I feel about that to, hmmm, maybe Eric
> doesn't know how I feel about that.
Some know how you feel about such "unilateral declarations" Pat...and
some
know how the AO feels......Reality is both feeling (yours/AO) have
been
intemittent, weak to the point of lame, oft directed to the recipient
rather than the perpetrator and consistently overwhellmed by the vast
majority who are prepared to openly go along with the accusations or
provide
tacit support.
How you "feel" about such behaviours is not reflected in or by the
broader
Baha'i community.
> Eric, when I encounter self-appointed Guardians among the Baha'is in good standing, I wriggle my ears at
> them, and stick out my tongue, until they leave the forum, or resign from the BF.
Flu clouds my perception....is this you talking Pat?-"I wriggle my
ears at
them, and stick out my tongue, until they leave the forum..." ???
My 'impession' is that the 'self-appointed Guardians' rulled Bnet
Pat...
and having stuck your tounge out the only thing that "wriggled" was
your bum as you "left the forum" and left them to continue their
Guardianship.
When the same Guardianship roleplay has been conducted here your ear
wriggling
and tongue poking has been polite or tempered to the point of
invisibility.
(I refer you to the DST's stint as Guardian and her designation of my
collusion with anti-Faith factions).
> Then they complain
> about how they were driven from the faith. Hmmm, maybe you have heard about >it?
Or they stay smeared as an 'Enemy of the Faith' and shunned as an
'untouchable'
on the fringes of the Baha'i community...wondering...not so much why
some
delusional Baha'is think they are entitled to make determinations
reserved
for the Guardian but why the vast majority of the Baha'i community was
prepared
to wriggle their ears, deny it is AO policy and pretend it's not
happening.
Culture of denial....maybe you have heard of it?
> > even if there is
> > no central decision to create such a category.
>
> Well, we don't need a central body to create the category of "Self-Appointed Guardians Among the Baha'is
> in Good Standing"; those w/in the category won't believe it, and just about >everyone else recognizes when they've done it.
Bollocks Pat....If "just about everyone else recognizes when they've
done it"
then that would be evidenced on these (and Bnet) boards. The
demonstrable reality is that the "Self-Appointed Guardians" (online
and off) can,did and
do get away with making any dam bogus allegation they choose with
hardly a whisper of question, challenge or complaint from the
gallery/community.
'Enemy of the Faith' is one the most serious allegations one Baha'i
can
make against another...up there, in my opinion, with 'thief, rapist,
pedophile'...and you can be subject to such an allegation without any
significant recognition of the charge. In fact you can waste years of
your
life trying to get 'anyone' (let alone "just about everyone") to
recognise and respond to the charge.
> I suppose we don't need to catorize them as Baha'is as they don't seem to stay in
> that pose for very long. Has SeekerAlfa ever come back to Beliefnet's Challenge board?
There are a lot of folk in 'Baha'i pose' mode who fled the fray at
Bnet
Pat.........not one of them was vigalent or firm in defending the
principle
of 'substantiate or retract' when an "Enemy of the Faith" allegation
was
made.
Rod,on the list, below 'Enemy of the Faith', above 'violator of the
Covenant', beside 'Mad,bad,CB', between 'Disassociated' and 'Inactive'
and within 'Had my chain pulled by obfuscating Baha'is in denial
thrice
too often'.
Freethought110
> Fuck off. The grown ups are talking now.
Then you should take your own advice and put your limey tail behind
your legs and go sulk on Karen's shoulder, parrot.
errol9
***** at BI*P*G...@LIBERTY.COM wrote on 31/8/03 5:12 pm:
> I argue that the uhj may very well have supported the war in Iraq
> and quietly or tacitly encouraged Kelly to do nothing to prevent
> the Blair government from going forward. I believe the uhj's
> ACTIONS, through its directives, corroborate such suspicion.
If the UHJ quietly or tacitly encouraged DR Kelly to support the war with
Iraq, evidence inclosed.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032772,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032698,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html
Then can someone explain how can the UHJ at the same time support the United
Nations and their head scientist Danielle Demetriou (replacement for Hans
Blix) who is quoted today 01 September 2003 as saying Bahai Dr kellys
september 'Dossier did not correspond with reality'?
"The Government Iraq dossier "did not correspond with reality", the UN's
chief weapons inspector said yesterday, casting further doubts on its use to
bolster Britain's case for going to war."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=439018
So we have one Bahai British scientist DR Kelly who was pro wa, And we have
a non-bahai UN scientist Danielle Demetriou who was anti war. Surely the
Bahai Universal House of Justice cannot support their Bahai scientist and
the UN at the same time?. Would that not be doublesided hypocritsy?
errol
errol9
***** at BI*P*G...@LIBERTY.COM wrote on 31/8/03 5:12 pm:
> I argue that the uhj may very well have supported the war in Iraq
> and quietly or tacitly encouraged Kelly to do nothing to prevent
> the Blair government from going forward. I believe the uhj's
> ACTIONS, through its directives, corroborate such suspicion.
If the UHJ quietly or tacitly encouraged DR Kelly to support the war with
Iraq, evidence inclosed.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032772,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032698,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html
Then can someone explain how can the UHJ at the same time support the United
Nations and their head scientist Danielle Demetriou (replacement for Hans
Blix) who is quoted today 01 September 2003 as saying The Government Iraq
dossier in which Bahai Dr Kelly helped compile an historical account (one
chapter) did not correspond with reality'?
"The Government Iraq dossier"did not correspond with reality", the UN's
chief weapons inspector said yesterday, casting further doubts on its use to
bolster Britain's case for going to war."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=439018
So we have one Bahai British scientist DR Kelly who was pro Iraq war, who
supported the British Government And we have a non-bahai scientist Danielle
Demetriou who was anti- war and supported the United Nations Surely the
Bahai Universal House of Justice cannot support both scientists views and
the British Government and United Nations at the same time?.
Would that not be outright two faced hypocrisy?.............errol
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Adelard Rubangura" <Adelard_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bitanq$cvk9r$4...@ID-75457.news.uni-berlin.de...
> It's really too bad, you think of the AO like that.
Well - it could change, if it wanted to but it doesn't so the only sane
response is to acknowledge its stupidity and hope, against hope that things
will change.
> God Bless
> Adelard
Yup! I think he needs to!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> So we have one Bahai British scientist DR Kelly who was pro wa, And we
have
> a non-bahai UN scientist Danielle Demetriou who was anti war. Surely the
> Bahai Universal House of Justice cannot support their Bahai scientist and
> the UN at the same time?. Would that not be doublesided hypocritsy?
Some would call it a difference of opinion. With you it's hypocrisy!
Indubitably you are correct. With you, it's hypocrisy!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> The silverytounged Disappointed Atheist Paul needs a mouthwash, or maybe
his
> nappy needs changed. Help Karen, your cyber-toyboy has crapped his pants.
But nowhere near as much as you're going to fill yours, shortly ... unless,
of course, you confess all.
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 1/9/03 4:15 pm:
Horlicks! Since when do the Bahai AO allow their members a difference of
opinion here?.............Errol
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahaèis of the United Kingdom
27 Rutland Gate, London SW7 1PD
Tel: 020-7584-2566 Fax: 020-7584 9402
E-mail: n...@bahai.org.uk
RESPONDING TO THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS
Guidance from the National Spiritual Assembly, 24 February 2003
The National Spiritual Assembly is aware that reactions in the UK at
national, regional and local levels to the possibility of war in Iraq and to
the anticipated policies of the UK and United States governments has
resulted in an increase in anti-war and anti-government activities, and that
these activities are contributing to divisive sentiments and tensions.
Members of the Bahaèi community may be uncertain as to what the proper
Bahaèi attitude should be with regard to their involvement in these matters.
Some Bahaèis may wish to participate in anti-war demonstrations or to assert
their Oright and responsibilityè to protest.
The National Assembly asks the believers to carefully study the relevant
guidance given by the Guardian and by the Universal House of Justice so that
they will be better able to appreciate and understand not only the
implications of any actions they wish to take, but also the wider
perspective on the unfolding of world events.
In a letter dated 12 January 2003 and written on its behalf to an individual
believer, the Universal House of Justice summarises the issues very clearly:
As you are aware, it is not the practice of Baha'i institutions or
individuals to take positions on the political decisions of governments. One
of the greatest obstacles to progress is the tendency of Baha'is to be drawn
into the general attitudes and disputes that surround them. The central
importance of the principle of avoidance of politics and controversial
matters is that Baha'is should not allow themselves to be involved in the
disputes of the many conflicting elements of the society around them.
The aim of the Baha'is is to reconcile viewpoints, to heal divisions, and to
bring about tolerance and mutual respect among men, and this aim is
undermined if we allow ourselves to be swept along by the ephemeral passions
of others. This does not mean that Baha'is cannot collaborate with any
non-Baha'i movement; it does mean that good judgment is required to
distinguish those activities and associations which are beneficial and
constructive from those which are divisive.
Bahaèis should exercise extreme caution in any active involvement in
demonstrations. Although there is no prohibition against individual Bahaèis
joining in marches and demonstrations as long as they are legal,
non-violent, and politically non-partisan, the National Assembly hopes that
individuals will be guided by their Bahaèi principles when considering the
implications of their participation in this type of activity. In the current
situation, the overarching principle is that the Bahaèi Faith does not take
sides in conflicts between countries. Participating in a march or
demonstration for or against military action in another country presupposes
taking sides.†
In a letter dated 27 November 2001 on its behalf to an individual, the House
of Justice says this:
The programme of the Bahaèi Cause itself operates in the political realm to
the extent that it is concerned with inducing changes in public policy and
behaviour at local, national and international levels. To this end, the
community collaborates with other like-minded organisations and works
closely with sympathetic governments and United Nations agencies. In doing
so, its efforts are scrupulous to avoid entanglement in agendas that serve
the interests of particular parties, factions, or similarly biased political
forces. This standard must likewise govern the behaviour of individual
believers.
Bahaèis may wish to consider channelling their energies into more positive
actions, particularly those which enable Bahaèis at local level to
participate in building peace without becoming entangled with political
interestsè. Local Spiritual Assemblies are free to explore such
possibilities, in accordance with their financial and human resources.
Bahaèis who are asked for the Bahaèi position on the Middle East situation
should respond that the Bahaèi Faith does not take positions on particular
crises or conflicts. We hope and pray that all such conflicts will be
resolved quickly and as peacefully as possible. We are confident, in spite
of conflicts which erupt in the world, that world peace is inevitable.
Bahaèis support international law and the role of the United Nations. It
would not be appropriate for Bahaèi institutions or individuals representing
Bahaèi institutions to participate in demonstrations regarding the crisis in
the Middle East.
As Bahaèis, we are aware that there will be great turmoil in the world
before world peace is attained. The Bahaèi Faith teaches that through the
development of collective security and of international law the means will
be found to control aggression.
Study of the following will help the friends develop a deeper understanding
of the processes at work in the world: The World Order of Bahaèuèllah,
especially pages 64-67 and pages 191-193, The Advent of Divine Justice,
especially pages 72-77, OThe Promise of World Peaceè, The Promised Day is
Come, pages 114-124, and Citadel of Faith, pages 30-38. The National
Spiritual Assembly also strongly recommends that we study Century of Light,
the document issued by the Universal House of Justice at Naw-R∑z 2001 that
reviews the profound changes that our world underwent during the twentieth
century in the context of the Bahaèi Teachings.
The Major Plan of God proceeds in mysterious and unpredictable ways until it
has achieved its destined goal - the unification of the human race in a
global society that has banished war and taken charge of its collective
destiny. But this process has barely begun and we still have a long way to
go. It is ultimately a spiritual process, and in traversing the great
distance that lies ahead there will clearly be many obstacles and pitfalls.
As Century of Light states:
It would be unrealistic to imagine that the challenges lying ahead may not
exact an even greater toll of a human race that still seeks, by every means
in its power, to avoid the spiritual implications of the experience it is
undergoing. [Century of Light, p. 138].
The Bahaèis should not be daunted by the world situation. In a timeless
piece of exposition, Shoghi Effendi has already set out what should be our
approach to the operation of Godès Major Plan and the recurrent turbulence
associated with it. The Bahaèis must:
acknowledge its necessity, observe confidently its mysterious processes,
ardently pray for the mitigation of its severity, intelligently labour to
assuage its fury, and anticipate, with undimmed vision, the consummation of
the fears and the hopes that it must necessarily engender. [Promised Day Is
Come, p. 4]†
Let this guidance of our beloved Guardian shape our response to what is
happening to current world events.
At moments of crisis such as this, the needs and the opportunities for
attracting ever larger numbers of souls to the Cause of God are at their
greatest. People are longing for solutions to the problems that have beset
humanity for far too long. Let us, then, devote ourselves, our time, energy
and resources, to the Plan at hand, with complete confidence that from our
humble efforts will emerge the unassailable foundation of the true and
enduring peace of mankind.
With loving Bahaèi greetings
National Spiritual Assembly
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 1/9/03 4:24 pm:
Is that a threat?..............Errol
Brian Walker
errol9 wrote:
snip
>
> Then can someone explain how can the UHJ at the same time support the United
> Nations and their head scientist Danielle Demetriou (replacement for Hans
> Blix) who is quoted today 01 September 2003 as saying Bahai Dr kellys
> september 'Dossier did not correspond with reality'?
>
> "The Government Iraq dossier "did not correspond with reality", the UN's
> chief weapons inspector said yesterday, casting further doubts on its use to
> bolster Britain's case for going to war."
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=439018
>
> So we have one Bahai British scientist DR Kelly who was pro wa, And we have
> a non-bahai UN scientist Danielle Demetriou who was anti war. Surely the
> Bahai Universal House of Justice cannot support their Bahai scientist and
> the UN at the same time?. Would that not be doublesided hypocritsy?
>
> errol
Are you saying that Baha'is should not have differing points of view?
Baha'is should always agree about everything?
Are you suggesting that the UHJ should support a Baha'is individual
point of view?
Why do you think these weird thoughts?
Brian
errol9
bfwa...@net-yan.com wrote on 1/9/03 12:42 pm:
> Not quite with you, Error:
Quack, Quack Quack.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:bivfrh$18ki$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
> Are you saying that Baha'is should not have differing points of view?
> Baha'is should always agree about everything?
>
> Are you suggesting that the UHJ should support a Baha'is individual
> point of view?
>
> Why do you think these weird thoughts?
Stick around, Brian - a wee while longer and I'll tell you exactly what
Error is up to. Some people have mouths that are too big for their brains
... and that's apart from Error.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> in article bivfrh$18ki$1...@news.hgc.com.hk, Brian Walker at
> bfwa...@net-yan.com wrote on 1/9/03 12:42 pm:
>
> > Not quite with you, Error:
>
> Quack, Quack Quack.
Got it in one Error!
DUCK!
Incoming rounds!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
No! That's your specialty!
>
>
>
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 1/9/03 6:38 pm:
Co rinn an samh sin?
>
>
>
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 1/9/03 6:41 pm:
>
> "errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:BB793927.367DF%err...@ntlworld.com...
>> in article bivrrh$ij1$1...@titan.btinternet.com, Dermod Ryder at grim_reaper
>> MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 1/9/03 4:24 pm:
>>
>>>
>>> "errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BB78088F.3677D%err...@ntlworld.com...
>>>> The silverytounged Disappointed Atheist Paul needs a mouthwash, or
> maybe
>>> his
>>>> nappy needs changed. Help Karen, your cyber-toyboy has crapped his
> pants.
>>>
>>> But nowhere near as much as you're going to fill yours, shortly ...
> unless,
>>> of course, you confess all.
>>
>> Is that a threat?..............Errol
>
>
> No! That's your specialty!
Sput a-mach e!
Michael McKenny
Apologies for hasty overposting.
I very much hope that all Baha'is can courteously listen and
effectively respond to the natural vast variety of views inherent in any
truly intelligent species. I very much hope the UHJ can encourage the full
freedom of courteous thought and expression, including that pointing out
the elevated spiritual principles of the religion awaiting implementation
by the UHJ.
To you and yours the very best.
Thrive, Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Brian Walker
> in article bivfrh$18ki$1...@news.hgc.com.hk, Brian Walker at
> bfwa...@net-yan.com wrote on 1/9/03 12:42 pm:
>
>
>>Not quite with you, Error:
>
>
> Quack, Quack Quack.
>
Still not with you, Error. Was that meant to be a statement of the
contents of your cranium? It does sound probable, but I did want to
confirm the impression.
Brian
Pat Kohli
Rod wrote:
> Hi Pat....(Karen,Dermod,Steve,Paul,various manefestations, all...)
>
> A week of flu has reduced me to sufficient state of boordom.
> Amongst all...this bollocks caught my attention.
>
Sorry about your health, beyond that, the feeling is mutual.
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F510C07...@ameritel.net>...
> > Paul Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F4ED0A3...@ameritel.net>...
> > > > Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3F4D482B...@ameritel.net...
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric's list is just a load of nonsense which he made up, for his own
> > > >propaganda purpose. It is no better than Fred's statement that Juan saw some letter from
> > > > the NSA, forbidding Baha'is from peace demonstrations, or something like that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does Eric suggest otherwise?
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps I misunderstood. It did seem to me that he was judging the Baha'i >community with his parting shot of, "How's that for unity of all people, huh?" To me, it seems he is trying to assign the moral
> > weight of his list, to the Baha'i community.
>
> Yes, that's how I read it- 'to the Baha'i community'...not to the
> AO.
>
> > Until he finds a letter from the AO resembling his list,
> > his list is the product of his mind. It reflects his projections and >prejudices.
>
> No, there was no suggestion (that I saw) to indicate the list
> reflected
> Baha'i 'policy'....rather (as you have already observed) the 'moral
> weight' sheets home to the 'community' and to the culture it has
> developed/
> embraced.
>
Uh huh, the second list was a projection which he variously acknowledges as making up, and disavows making up.
>
> > To my mind, the
> > possibility that it resonates with your impression, or Dermod's or Karen's, doesn't make it
> > representative of the Baha'i community.
>
> That's right Pat.....And it would not/does not matter how much
> substantive
> evidence is put before you to confirm these 'impressions'...denial
> rules.
>
Lots of evidence has been put before me. I have seen plenty of denial. I see gross fabrication. I've seen a guy write an article which was published in "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion", and right
here, deny that he wrote in it what he wrote in it. There is no denying that denying rules; that is why I like to see evidence.
If you'd like to see examples of even _respected_ names being used to pass lies on TRB, I'd be happy to show you.
If you have a speck of evidenc which you would like to discuss; you know where I live, Rod.
>
> Tell me Pat...was it just my 'impression' that I was designated an
> 'Enemy
> of the Faith' and a 'violator of the Covenant' by the BIGS denizens of
> Bnet and TRB?
I certainly do recall one miscreant repeatedly hounding you much like a mindless dog who has spotted a cat beyond the range of its chain. No worries, mate, I got the same reaction in the same places.
> Was it my 'impression' that it took two years to leaver
> any
> justification for the accusation?
Does this have something to do w/ trends w/in the Baha'i community, your campaign to get one dog to mind his own fleas?
> My 'impression' that when eventualy
> forthcomming my sin was revealed to have been the online description
> of
> a defunct LSA as "dysfunctional"? My 'impression' that among the BIGS
> defenders of the Faith only you and Dave F raised any objections and
> these
> fell overwhellmed (at least ten to two) by those prepared to proffer
> allegation
> without substantiation?
I remember D95 having, what seemed to me, an unending fit. It would seem like he would get talked down to a state of calm, and a day or two later, out of the blue, sweep in on a thread and start barking about you as
some sort of evil-doer. The same person, and/or, his clone went after Steve Marshall, and Karen B. and myself. You, Steve, and me, are all enrolled Baha'i, if we are going to either be intimidated by a wild dog,
or, take the dog seriously, that is a problem for us as Baha'is. Sadly, on a commercial forum like B'net, I get the impression that that sort of misbehavior might be accepted as good for business. I don't see Fred
B., or D95 here, where they are likely to become quickly killfiled as internet kooks. On B'net, where the threads run completely linearly, they are impossible to ignore in software - active concentration is required
at some point.
> Was it my 'impression' that exactly the same
> preparedness to lable a community member 'Enemy of the Faith' was
> played
> out here by the DST and Co?
>
If you are referring to George Fleming, and are simply reluctant to name his name, I understand. I may have been more involved in the labling of that community member than anyone else beside him. He really did try
very hard, and it did seem like he was trying to suggest we were all a bunch of CBs on TRB, though I could be wrong about the extent to which his allegation ran. Recently, Eric Stetson came to TRB and pointed out
the history of oppression w/in the Baha'i Faith, to include the shameful manner with which we dealt with that spamming miscreant. I think "spamming miscreant Baha'i" would be more the spirit of his label, rather
than "Enemy of the Faith" per se.
>
> And what Pat?.....You want a letter from the AO that confirms this is
> Baha'i policy?
Nope. I point out a lack of a letter. I was hoping for some responsibility, some ownership. I was hoping maybe the author could say, "yeah, I made up that list, and you do have a good point; it reflects my
opinions of the Baha'is; my comments about how the list reflects on the Baha'is, were wrong; thanks". Nobody wants to own the BS around here, though.
> .....You are not content with the clear and
> unequivocable
> evidence that it is an ingrained aspect of Baha'i community culture?
Right. I am not at all convinced. My experience has been like this atheist's; I find the Baha'is (in the real world) to be a generally accepting lot, though, perhaps, we've grown less than enthusiastic in regard to
fatheads.
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bioef1%24r6t%241%40news.doit.wisc.edu
I suspect that this desire to be accepting, is how the D95s, Fred Bs, and George Flemings of this world come into our community. What we do with them, determines what we get from them.
>
> > Sometimes the things counted as common knowledge really are
> > accurate, and sometimes the things which get excused as common knowledge, are > simply commonly held prejudices which are really mistakes.
>
> And sometimes the 'common knowledge' is demonstrable and subject to
> substantiation. This is just such a case....the evidence is here on
> these
> boards, on the Bnet boards, all over the Net. The preparedness of
> Baha'is
> to designate (without authorization or justification) other community
> membes as 'Enemies of the Faith' is beyond question. You yourself have
> raised (albiet brief and lacklustre;-) objection to such behaviour.
>
Rod, I think there is a big difference between the observation that individuals do this, and frequently get booed out of cyberspace, and the projection that it is commonplace and a normal Baha'i activity.
Here are the cases that I've seen:
Handle Target Forum Disposition
SeekerAlfa Steve Marshall B-Net Left, never to return
Pithbegone (possibly alleged
Talismanians?) B-Net Claimed to be leaving, returned covertly as Effie
Effie Karen B-Net Denounced as a vampire, ????
D95 Rod B-Net (fill in)
George TRB TRB Resigned from the Baha'i Faith
My impression is that, in the main, Baha'is who jump up and falsely liable Baha'is on the internet, do not fare so well for it. If you've got a handful of _different_ cases to talk about, I am all ears.
>
> We do not need a letter from the AO to confirm this is policy...we
> need
> some posts from BIGS Baha'is recognizing that it is common
> practice...only
> then will the culture of denial begin to deminish.
>
Firetruck the denial, I say take on the miscreants head on!
>
>
> > I don't like arguments which require strong appeals to prejudice.
>
> I don't like arguements which reflect weak denials of that which is
> clear, evident and demonstrable.
>
I appreciate your support.
>
> Nor those that are so evasive that they seek a letter of AO
> confirmation
> for a list of cultural class divisions within the community.
>
Rod, I pointed out there was no letter from the AO establishing his list. It is something he made up, and it seems he wants to deny that at times.
>
> > >
> > > His tongue might be to some extent in his cheek, but I haven't
> > > seen where Eric thinks that his list has some kind of
> > > official status, or that he has some ability to read the
> > > minds of Baha'is.
> > >
> >
> > To me, it looks like he is trying to have it both ways, making up the list, > > but judging the Baha'is by it.
>
> ??????????????????? What!?
> The Baha'i community is judged by its general behaviour (online and
> off)
> and the 'list' (valid and accurate IMHO) is drawn from those
> behaviours.
You have your conclusions based on your own observations. I pointed out specific observations, all of which were witnessed by other people on line, many of them here right now. The conclusion _I've_ made in looking
at these cases are my conclusions, and please do feel free to dispute them, but with just these five cases, it looks like Eric has bupkis. Obviously, you have your real Baha'i life that you can draw from in forming
your conclusions, as do I. In my real Baha'i life, a former Baha'i does not rank any lower than any other non-Baha'i, etc.
>
> (You don't have to "read the minds of Baha'is" you only have to read
> their
> posts...and the 'list' is confirmed and validated).
Oh, well, if you don't want to fall back on your own private experience, but wish to join me in referencing specific verifiable incidents, please, do help yourself and me be listing addititional incidents.
>
> > >
> > > Probably, the AO would say that self-appointed Guardians
> > > shouldn't go around unilaterally declaring spiritually
> > > corrosive Covenant Breakers - but it is something that
> > > happens in the sociology of the Faith,
> >
> > ... and I think everyone knows how I feel about that to, hmmm, maybe Eric
> > doesn't know how I feel about that.
>
> Some know how you feel about such "unilateral declarations" Pat...and
> some
> know how the AO feels......Reality is both feeling (yours/AO) have
> been
> intemittent, weak to the point of lame, oft directed to the recipient
> rather than the perpetrator and consistently overwhellmed by the vast
> majority who are prepared to openly go along with the accusations or
> provide
> tacit support.
Well, Rod, I am sorry that Dusty did not get off of your case before I left B-net. However, I don't think the reality of Baha'i Cyberspace is epitomized by one horsefly over at a commercial web site. I really do
feel like most of the Baha'is on Beliefnet _were_ opposed to SeekerAlfa's attack on Steve Marshall, and I think that many (other than FEffie's two pals) were disappointed and disgusted at his sneaking back on to
Beliefnet, and making outrageous personal insults. I also think that most Baha'is here were disgusted by George's conduct. I realize that that is my opinion, though. Getting back to you and D95, I think it is
possible that most Baha'is had grown weary of the antics of the three, and figured they don't respond to helpful hints anyway. Did you get the feeling that D95 had any success in pursuading anyone that you really
were an enmey of the faith?
>
> How you "feel" about such behaviours is not reflected in or by the
> broader
> Baha'i community.
>
Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA, telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they said it much nicer. My experience with the Baha'i community has been
that for a Baha'i to jump up and liable another Baha'i, bad things for the party making the allegation, follows like thunder after lightening, unless the allegation can be made to stick, as it has with those who have
falsely made such allegations.
>
> > Eric, when I encounter self-appointed Guardians among the Baha'is in good standing, I wriggle my ears at
> > them, and stick out my tongue, until they leave the forum, or resign from the BF.
>
> Flu clouds my perception....is this you talking Pat?-"I wriggle my
> ears at
> them, and stick out my tongue, until they leave the forum..." ???
I think you've seen me work.
>
> My 'impession' is that the 'self-appointed Guardians' rulled Bnet
> Pat...
It is a commercial site, Rod! Three individuals seemed to have a special forum where they sorted out their story. One of the them (your pal!) was chatting up Multiman like he was a seeker, and another one was
chatting up Brent like old buds! One of them got themselves appointed co-host w/ Brent! This stuff would not have happened on a site run by Baha'is, like the library's now-beseiged board, or PlanetBaha'i. I tried
to post my concerns on Beliefnet, but that got the ray gun. IMO, B-net is not reflective of the real Baha'i world. I left.
>
> and having stuck your tounge out the only thing that "wriggled" was
> your bum as you "left the forum" and left them to continue their
> Guardianship.
One of the gang of three was the forum host. I don't need to stick around a place full of adds, where messages come up slowly, and threads are trackless. Gees, that place was heading south in general. If all the
Baha'is had left, maybe they would have listened to input from Baha'is instead of deleting it.
>
> When the same Guardianship roleplay has been conducted here your ear
> wriggling
> and tongue poking has been polite or tempered to the point of
> invisibility.
Missed me.
>
> (I refer you to the DST's stint as Guardian and her designation of my
> collusion with anti-Faith factions).
>
So, are you saying that Susan accused you of collusion? Did you ask her for evidence? This approach has worked for me. I don't read all the messages.
I do recall her posting something about how bad Sen was, and I questioned it, even implying she had done what she imputed to Sen.
http://groups.google.com./groups?q=g:thl912623608d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3F0F78AC.EBAB2B02%40ameritel.net
If you really do feel that she is setting on you unfairly, please do drop me a line, and give me the thread name, and maybe some dates and/or quotes of particular messages, and I'll be happy to set on her, and have
her set on me.
>
> > Then they complain
> > about how they were driven from the faith. Hmmm, maybe you have heard about >it?
>
> Or they stay smeared as an 'Enemy of the Faith' and shunned as an
> 'untouchable'
> on the fringes of the Baha'i community...wondering...not so much why
> some
> delusional Baha'is think they are entitled to make determinations
> reserved
> for the Guardian but why the vast majority of the Baha'i community was
> prepared
> to wriggle their ears, deny it is AO policy and pretend it's not
> happening.
> Culture of denial....maybe you have heard of it?
>
Oh, I think I see a lot of the culture of denial. You've had problems with Susan, too, and I missed it - that is my inferrence. That is the thing about Beliefnet, where I'd try to read all the messages (or try!),
because they were all strung together anyway.
>
> > > even if there is
> > > no central decision to create such a category.
> >
> > Well, we don't need a central body to create the category of "Self-Appointed Guardians Among the Baha'is
> > in Good Standing"; those w/in the category won't believe it, and just about >everyone else recognizes when they've done it.
>
> Bollocks Pat....If "just about everyone else recognizes when they've
> done it"
> then that would be evidenced on these (and Bnet) boards.
Yes, and I've shared my observations how, in general, the miscreant in general gets pummeled, and either leaves the forum with their tail between their legs, or resigns the faith. Your experience with D95 was the
exception. Still, I'll point out that that happened on B-net, at a time when he was in cahoots with a volunteer moderator on a 'for profit' web site. That sort of environment is not at all typical of the Baha'i
world, or even Baha'i cyberspace. If you think that typifies Baha'i cyberspace, I think you hang around there too much.
> The
> demonstrable reality is that the "Self-Appointed Guardians" (online
> and off) can,did and
> do get away with making any dam bogus allegation they choose with
> hardly a whisper of question, challenge or complaint from the
> gallery/community.
Wrong. SeekerAlfa accused someone of being a CB, and they left B-Net never to return. Pithbegone attacked a bunch of Baha'is as 'Talismanians' and claimed he was leaving in embarassment. When he returned as Effie,
he got humiliated again after his attack on Karen, and I think he swore of C&C, at least - I hope he kept that promise. D95 went after you like a fly after a steak, and that appears to be an exception, which I think
occurred because B-Net got volunteer moderators so that he felt he could get away with it. George Fleming attacked TRB as a CB group and he resigned from the faith. Are all these other stories new to you? If not,
how come they don't seem to be reflected in your "demonstrable reality"?
>
> 'Enemy of the Faith' is one the most serious allegations one Baha'i
> can
> make against another...up there, in my opinion, with 'thief, rapist,
> pedophile'...and you can be subject to such an allegation without any
> significant recognition of the charge. In fact you can waste years of
> your
> life trying to get 'anyone' (let alone "just about everyone") to
> recognise and respond to the charge.
>
>
Sure, it is an awful thing to say, but I get called stuff like that all the time. Errol will say I've been disobeying the Guardian, or the UHJ. The thing you ought to remember, is most reasonable people can
recognize an internet kook at some point. I don't feel like I need to defend my reputation from the attack of every internet kook. They can say I like boys, they can say I am paid to be here. They've got "internet
kook" written all over them. I might refute one of their allegations the first time they make it, but I can't respond to each and every regurgo-libel.
>
> > I suppose we don't need to catorize them as Baha'is as they don't seem to stay in
> > that pose for very long. Has SeekerAlfa ever come back to Beliefnet's Challenge board?
>
> There are a lot of folk in 'Baha'i pose' mode who fled the fray at
> Bnet
> Pat.........not one of them was vigalent or firm in defending the
> principle
> of 'substantiate or retract' when an "Enemy of the Faith" allegation
> was
> made.
>
At the time, I encouraged everyone to leave.
>
> Rod,on the list, below 'Enemy of the Faith', above 'violator of the
> Covenant', beside 'Mad,bad,CB', between 'Disassociated' and 'Inactive'
> and within 'Had my chain pulled by obfuscating Baha'is in denial
> thrice
> too often'.
I'm sorry he hurt your feelings. These sorts of things get me excited the first time I see someone going after me, but at some point, I realize it is about them, not me.
Over the past year Nima has said a lot of hurful things about a lot of people, but when you look at what he'd been doing before, he had established a pattern of personal attacks, against Steve Marshall, and then
Milissa Kafes, before this past years attacks. When he went after Paul and Dermod, it may have been hurtful to them, at first, but I think they recognize it as a pattern with Nima, that it is more about him, than
about them. This is may way of dealing with the baseless character attacks that have been made against me by both Baha'is and non-Baha'is.
Eric Stetson
> Uh huh, the second list was a projection which he variously acknowledges as
> making up, and disavows making up.
[snip]
> Nope. I point out a lack of a letter. I was hoping for some responsibility, > some ownership. I was hoping maybe the author could say, "yeah, I made up
> that list, and you do have a good point; it reflects my
> opinions of the Baha'is; my comments about how the list reflects on the
> Baha'is, were wrong; thanks". Nobody wants to own the BS around here,
> though.
[snip]
> Rod, I pointed out there was no letter from the AO establishing his list.
> It is something he made up, and it seems he wants to deny that at times.
Pat, I don't understand why you still aren't getting it. The issue is
not, and has never been, whether or not my list is "made up" or
whether I have a letter from the AO to establish it. I specifically
stated when I first posted the list that this is NOT OFFICIAL but
could perhaps BECOME official in the FUTURE, if current trends in the
Baha'i community continue. Mainly, the list was an attempt to point
out, in a somewhat humorous tone, the serious problem I see with the
way many Baha'is tend to categorize people in their own minds
according to their relationship with the Baha'i Faith and its
institutions. You ask for evidence. I respond that the evidence is
everywhere -- in the stories of many unenrolled and ex-Baha'is and in
the statements made by some BIGS on the internet. I do not have time
right now to go gather a few dozen links to show this, but perhaps
sometime I will.
Best,
Eric
Freethought110
> Over the past year Nima has said a lot of hurful things about a lot of people,
Who have deserved every word of it and then some.
Freethought110
> Lots of evidence has been put before me. I have seen plenty of denial.
Yup from you. But, then again, you have an agenda to deny and are
obviously being paid to do it.
errol9
bfwa...@net-yan.com wrote on 2/9/03 12:42 am:
Tha thu cho duaichnidh ri èarr àirde de a' coisich deas damh
>
> Brian
>
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/9/03 3:01 am:
> Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA,
> telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they said
> it much nicer.
Now Pat the words "stop acting like such a jackass" were never in the
letter. Here is the letter ordering me off certain newsgroups because you
and Susan Maneck snitched on me to the UK NSA for having a flame war with
two ex-bahais and "Disappointed Atheist" (Hikmat Paul Hammond).........Errol
Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
Letter from NSA of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom'
27 Rutland gate, London SW7 1PD
October 18,2002
Mr George Fleming
Dear Baha'i friend,
The national Spirtual assembly appreciates your desire to
defend the good name of our beloved Faith and the sincerity with
which you seek to do so. However, uour recent imvolvement in
certain email discussion groups may have inadvertently helped
the cause of those very individuals from whom you are seeking
to protect the Faith, and this has become a source of some
concern to the National Assembly.
The national Spiritual Assembly therefore instructs you, with
immediate effect, to cease and disist from participating in the
SCI, TRB and ARB e-discussion lists and in any other
unmoderated discussions conducted over email. Further, you
are requested to cease direct communication with Pat Kohli and
Susan Maneck and the national Spirtual Assembbly of the United
States. However should you have a grievance which you would
like to bring to the attention of the latter body you are kindly asked
to refer such a matter to the attention of the National Assembly of
the United Kingdom.
The national Assembly further asks you to refrain from
discussing any of the issues raised in this letter with anyone
other than Councellor Shahriavi, the national Spirtual Assembly
of the United Kingdom, or Auxiliary Board members Denis Coyle
and Ann O'Sullivan.
The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what
is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national
Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
With loving Baha'i greetings.
National Spirtual Assembly
Kishan Manocha, Assistant Secretary.
George Fleming
Belfast N Ireland
Dear National Spirtual Assembly members
After reading your letter 18/10/02 were you stated:
"The NSA therefore instructs you, with immediate effect, to cease
and desist from particpating in SCI, TRB, and ARB e-discussion
lists and in any other unmoderated discussions conducted over
e/mail"
Along with SCI there are some 42,760 more unmoderated
groups on the internet which are not Baha'i related unmoderated
newsgroups.
I therefore believe this instruction is totally against me my human
and freedom of rights, and therefore have been left with no
alternative other than to resign from the Baha'i Faith.
I herby declare that on 21/10/02 George Fleming Belfast N
Ireland has resigned his membership from the Baha'i Faith.
Membership Number ******
Signed George Fleming Bahai Faith membership card
enclosed.
errol9
erics...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/9/03 4:52 am:
> Pat, I don't understand why you still aren't getting it.
Pat will never get it, its his army training you know. Everything that moves
is saluted, and everything that dosent move needs painted, polished or an
offical letter from HQ to approve of it being there.
Errol
errol9
at freetho...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/9/03 6:20 am:
Poor. "Holy Kohli", "Grim squeaker" "Disappointed Atheist" and the "Quacky
HK" had their innocence abused by Nima
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame8.html
Errol
errol9
at freetho...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/9/03 6:22 am:
In the beginning, before bandwidth, there was nothingness. Out of that
endless void God and His heavenly host created Holy Kohli to be the judge
and master over TRB. http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame76.html
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
Holy Shit! He's talking in "tongues!" Not another Prophet! Dear God! Not
another Prophet!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
Obviously your time as a lower deck matelot did not teach you any respect
for officers. Salute, the next time that Captain Kohli comes on board, you
miserable little worm.
No wonder you and Nima make a great pair - "All the nice girls love a
Sailor!"
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >> Is that a threat?..............Errol
> >
> >
> > No! That's your specialty!
>
> Sput a-mach e!
Do you need a handkerchief?
Freethought110
> "Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
> news:bivfrh$18ki$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
> > Are you saying that Baha'is should not have differing points of view?
> > Baha'is should always agree about everything?
> >
> > Are you suggesting that the UHJ should support a Baha'is individual
> > point of view?
> >
> > Why do you think these weird thoughts?
>
> Stick around, Brian - a wee while longer and I'll tell you exactly what
> Error is up to.
Brian is an AO loyalist and insider. I'm sure he's privy to more
information than you any day.
> Some people have mouths that are too big for their brains
Yeah, like you.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bj03nr$4u7$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > "Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
> > news:bivfrh$18ki$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
> > > Are you saying that Baha'is should not have differing points of view?
> > > Baha'is should always agree about everything?
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that the UHJ should support a Baha'is individual
> > > point of view?
> > >
> > > Why do you think these weird thoughts?
> >
> > Stick around, Brian - a wee while longer and I'll tell you exactly what
> > Error is up to.
>
> Brian is an AO loyalist and insider. I'm sure he's privy to more
> information than you any day.
I think he sussed Error from day one, as did I, as did you .... but you
changed your mind ... or did you? It suits your agenda to use him now
(although you've been shrewd enough not to subscribe to his Kelly Conspiracy
Theory) but ere long he shall go the way that Starr did.
Paul Hammond
Errol has adduced as "evidence" this article from Sunday's
Observer:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032772,00.html
This is a personal piece by a journalist who knew Kelly,
and knew Kelly's view of Saddam, and his support for
the war.
Evidence of Kelly's support for the war, it certainly
is.
However, the article does not mention the word "Baha'i"
anywhere in it - so how Error can think this article
proves the tacit encouragement of the UHJ for Dr Kelly
to support the war is beyond me.
It seems to me that Kelly's opinions about Iraq and
Saddam came from his personal experience as a part of
his work.
I would have disagreed with him. I was always opposed
to following an American neo-conservative agenda into
making war on Iraq.
However, what the article *does* provide is further
evidence of the high regard in which everyone who
knew the man held him.
In fact, I was the first person to post a link to
this article here, because I was interested to see
if it would change Error's much repeated opinion
that Dr Kelly was a "traitor".
I haven't had any answer from him on that point yet.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Ah, I always love going back to Mike's site.
Here's another good one:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame45.html
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article 3F5407F9...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/9/03 3:01 am:
>
> > Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA,
> > telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they said
> > it much nicer.
>
> Now Pat the words "stop acting like such a jackass" were never in the
> letter. Here is the letter ordering me off certain newsgroups because you
> and Susan Maneck snitched on me to the UK NSA for having a flame war with
> two ex-bahais and "Disappointed Atheist" (Hikmat Paul Hammond).........Errol
>
> Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
>
>
> is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national
> Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
>
>
Yeah, thanks for pointing out the evidence that proves
what Pat was saying. I'm sure no-one doubted it anyway, but
it's nice to see the actual words.
Shame your understanding was so weak.
Paul
Brian Walker
Ah Error,
What would we do without you? Not only are you completely clueless, but
you fail to have the wit to converse on your inaninities. (Please do not
ask yourself if you have that particular anatomical part. I am sure you
do.)
Na dann, wollen wir an's Geschaeft? Nee - ehrlich gesagt, Du langweilst
mich. Kannst mich mal, sozusagen. Tschuess!
Brian
Gosh. I can play that game too! The only issue is, I actually can use
that language fluently, not parrot phrases copied from someone better.
Rod
> > Tell me Pat...was it just my 'impression' that I was designated an
> > 'Enemy
> > of the Faith' and a 'violator of the Covenant' by the BIGS denizens of
> > Bnet and TRB?
>
> I certainly do recall one miscreant repeatedly hounding you much like a mindless dog who has spotted a cat beyond the range of its chain. No worries, mate, I got the same reaction in the same places.
My count was two mindless dogs (Pith&D95)...and that would be no
worries
mate....had it not been for the goodly host prepared to pat their
heads
and feed them. The vast majority of Bnet BIGS participants (two dozen+
over 2.5 years) showed no preparedness to check, challange or discuss
their
hounding. There's the rub.
>
> > Was it my 'impression' that it took two years to leaver
> > any
> > justification for the accusation?
>
> Does this have something to do w/ trends w/in the Baha'i community, your
> campaign to get one dog to mind his own fleas?
Yes...It has everything to do with trends (culture) within the Baha'i
community...and nothing to do with a lone itchy dog. "Enemy of the
Faith"
is not a flea bite Pat...it's a dog bite...a wild dog, a rabbid dog.
To dismiss it as fleabite is to demean the seriousness of the
attack...
akin, IMHO, to- "Oh honey...it's only rape".
"Enemy of the Faith" is attack, assult....an act of profound verbal
violence.
Abdul Baha gave clear instructions on how to deal with a 'Wild Arab'
attacking
the Friends...I see no reason to assume his injunction should differ
for wild
dogs.
Beyond this, my "campaign" (and that it clearly was) entailed not
teaching
one old rabbid dog new tricks...but rather, trying to encourage the
pups to
recognise their collective responsibility to protect the pack (in
accord with
His instruction).
This prooved to be futile and fruitless...the notion of collective
responsibility (like due process) is an anathema within the community.
Snip
> You, Steve, and me, are all enrolled Baha'i, if we are going to either be intimidated by a wild dog, or, take the dog seriously, that is a problem for us as Baha'is.
And here we stand with diametricaly opposed mindset...for I am not
intimidated
by the wild dog but I take it's demonstrated potential to bite, infect
and harm
very seriously....and I deplore the culture that refuses to do so. I
am a mature man of experience almost as ample as my girth Pat, a
product of working class coal fields, I do not fear wild dogs....but I
am terrified by the community that consistantly responds- "Look to
your own foaming mouth dog...
you are not our concern or responsibility"
> Sadly, on a commercial forum like B'net, I get the impression that that sort of misbehavior might be accepted as good for business.
I percieve/d no significant imput/influence from Bnet Inc...I did see
ample
evidence of contemporary Baha'i culture and cosmology played out in
Baha'i
Host decisions. WC provided one of the most remarkable demonstrations
of Baha'i due procces with a commic routene called-'Proove yourself
innocent...no, don't
bother, we'll do it for you'.
(Having agreed that any serious allegation demanded
substantiation...when confronted with yet another EofF allegation...WC
proceeded (unanounced) to
'consolidate' two years+ of my threads...so that all might determine
for themselves if I had ever attacked the UHJ......Classic Baha'i due
process
commedy ;-)
Snip
> > Was it my 'impression' that exactly the same
> > preparedness to lable a community member 'Enemy of the Faith' was
> > played
> > out here by the DST and Co?
> >
>
> If you are referring to George Fleming, and are simply reluctant to name his name, I understand.
No, I was referring to Susan M, (somethig?)Star and R Shouts.
The EofF allegations have been made openly and explicitly and by
thinly
veiled innuendo, on two occasions I have threattened both legal and AO
action, on all occasions it has proven consistantly impossible to get
a
straight (or any) explination/justification for the attack.
(It appears that simply being on speaking terms with Dermod, Karen etc
will suffice to provoke a charge;-)
Snip
> > And what Pat?.....You want a letter from the AO that confirms this is
> > Baha'i policy?
>
> Nope. I point out a lack of a letter. I was hoping for some responsibility, some ownership. I was hoping maybe the author could say, "yeah, I made up that list, and you do have a good point; it reflects my
> opinions of the Baha'is; my comments about how the list reflects on the Baha'is, were wrong; thanks". Nobody wants to own the BS around here, though.
I think the letter/policy line is a red herring....the list reflects
common
(if not prevailing) community practice and mindset.
> > .....You are not content with the clear and
> > unequivocable
> > evidence that it is an ingrained aspect of Baha'i community culture?
>
> Right. I am not at all convinced. My experience has been like this atheist's; I find the Baha'is (in the real world) to be a generally accepting lot, though, perhaps, we've grown less than enthusiastic in regard to
> fatheads.
Ok Pat...I've driven a motor car for thirty years and never had an
accident.
Can I conclude there are no speeding drunk dogs, no accidents more
serious than a flea bite and that the AO police always gets their dog
while the AO hospital never looses a patient while the community is
unified in its deep concern for road safety?
Yes....our experiences differ...that discounts neither experience. I
have worked in the building industry, welfare and education and NEVER
have I been subject to a serious allegation that inclined me to reach
for my lawyer. Ten years in as a Baha'i and I have repeatedly faced
serious allegations in a due process vacume of denied representation
and vacant collective responsibility.
Snip
>>The preparedness of
> > Baha'is
> > to designate (without authorization or justification) other community
> > membes as 'Enemies of the Faith' is beyond question. You yourself have
> > raised (albiet brief and lacklustre;-) objection to such behaviour.
> >
>
> Rod, I think there is a big difference between the observation that individuals do this, and frequently get booed out of cyberspace, and the projection that it is commonplace and a normal Baha'i activity.
I have not seen (nor do I desire) any individual "get booed out" (of
Cspase or community). I have, from the very outset, argued/advocated/
campaigned/begged and pleaded that in circumstances of wild dog attack
the primary, immediate, Divine and compulsory community response MUST
BE-"On what basis have you bitten him/her?....Substantiate and justify
your allegation or withdraw it".
Despite repeated dog bites....that has NEVER happened Pat...not once.
Not online, not in the community, not in my observation of others
being
bitten, not withstanding your experience does not match mine.
If you wish to plough through the (now consolidated and re named)
'Percieved Injuries' thread on Bnet (500+ posts) you will find the
EofF allegation repeated in various forms, you will find (my) call for
substantiation repeated addinfiniteum...but you will not find one
BIGS Baha'i who will support/mirror the call...not even the Baha'i
Host who had made such a call Board Policy.
That's the bottom line Pat, the online record of discussion/debate
(on more than one site, on several occasions) during which Baha'is
in good standing are prepared to have 'Friends' dogbit by EofF
allegations AND SAY NOTHING. That's what validates the list.
Snip cases.
> My impression is that, in the main, Baha'is who jump up and falsely liable Baha'is on the internet, do not fare so well for it. If you've got a handful of _different_ cases to talk about, I am all ears.
Effie/Pith returned/continued on Bnet, it took eighteen months to
corner
his initial allegation and apology, he then turned round and repeated
its
varient...further months of pursuit. At no stage, on either occasion,
did
any participating Baha'i request he validate or explain the charge.
D95 (shadow of Pith) identical paralell story...point/emphasis being
no
Baha'i gallery comment/intervention.
(Something?)Star,TRB, same story, EofF allegation, threttened with AO/
legal action, no Baha'i present expected or requested justification of
allegation.
S Manic,TRB, EofF allegation, no explination, none requested from
gallery.
Now, four or five "cases" of individual wild dogs is not numericaly
significant Pat...even if we include offline experience double it to
a bakers dozen...even if we include the "impressions" of others who
claim to have been bitten and tripple the number of 'individual
cases'...
it still does not give great/conclusive weight.
But the propisition does not rest on individual cases Pat...it rests
on
the vast majority of Baha'i witnesses who are prepared to say nothing,
dismiss it as flea bite...or offer spiritual balm. The number of
Baha'is
so inclined IS numericaly significant...they ARE the overwhelming
majority.
> >
> > We do not need a letter from the AO to confirm this is policy...we
> > need
> > some posts from BIGS Baha'is recognizing that it is common
> > practice...only
> > then will the culture of denial begin to deminish.
> >
>
> Firetruck the denial, I say take on the miscreants head on!
Into the valley of isolated death rode the brave lone 1.
Snip
> Rod, I pointed out there was no letter from the AO establishing his list. It is something he made up, and it seems he wants to deny that at times.
I'm not clear what this means..."made up" as in impression/belief re
community
or "made up" as in misrepresentation of AO policy (current or
projected).
My understanding was that he observed the phenomena within the
community
and speculated it may become future policy? No?
Snip
> > The Baha'i community is judged by its general behaviour (online and
> > off)
> > and the 'list' (valid and accurate IMHO) is drawn from those
> > behaviours.
>
> You have your conclusions based on your own observations. I pointed out specific observations, all of which were witnessed by other people on line, many of them here right now.
> The conclusion _I've_ made in looking
> at these cases are my conclusions, and please do feel free to dispute them, but with just these five cases, it looks like Eric has bupkis. Obviously, you have your real Baha'i life that you can draw from in forming
> your conclusions, as do I. In my real Baha'i life, a former Baha'i does not rank any lower than any other non-Baha'i, etc.
Your right Pat...I can, indeed have, argued for years that I (and
others) have been rabbid wild dog bit and that the collective
protective Baha'i response was
inadequate or absent....and that runs counter and headlong into the
others personal experience in which they have not been bitten, or the
bite was "flea" and the community response quite kosher. I do indeed
have a real Baha'i life
that I can draw from...it contains recolections of three different
Counsellors asking me (regarding two seperate individuals with
personal problems or communication deficits)- "Do you think he is a
CB"?....it contains recolections of sitting in something called Baha'i
Mediation while a Counsellor, NSA member and two communities sat
passive as one individual interupted and shouted down my every attempt
to speak...it contains years wasted (online and off) advocating
consideration and consultation re the potential implementation of fair
due process only to find that a/Few saw any need, none would discuss
what
might meet the need b/Two Friends ring up as 'friends' seeking a
social chat
only to subsequently reveal themselves as emisaries of the NSA which
has unspecified "concerns" about my Internet advocasy of due process.
> >
> > (You don't have to "read the minds of Baha'is" you only have to read
> > their
> > posts...and the 'list' is confirmed and validated).
>
> Oh, well, if you don't want to fall back on your own private experience,
I shy away from real world/private recolections of experience within
the Baha'i
community because- a/It is difficult to substantiate. b/ Even with the
best of
intentions the voice of the 'other' is misrepresented (online provides
clear record...unless you get consolidated ;-) c/ It was through
attempting to outline
my personal Baha'i experience that I first became a recipient of the
Enemy charge.
Once bitten.......
>but wish to join me in referencing specific verifiable incidents,
please, do >help yourself and me be listing addititional incidents.
Trawl up the Bnet thread in which Pith asserts I have attacked the UHJ
and
no one says "Yea? Show us Pith"...Or the TRB thread in which S Manic
asserts
I am a member of the anti Faith faction and no one says "Yea? Proove
it Sue"...
and do what then Pat?...compare these events to incidents in which
someone
said "Booo Hisss"?
> > Reality is both feeling (yours/AO) have been
> > intemittent, weak to the point of lame, oft directed to the recipient
> > rather than the perpetrator and consistently overwhellmed by the vast
> > majority who are prepared to openly go along with the accusations or
> > provide tacit support.
>
> Well, Rod, I am sorry that Dusty did not get off of your case before I left B-net. However, I don't think the reality of Baha'i Cyberspace is epitomized by one horsefly over at a commercial web site.
Say again, one wild dog, one wild Arab, not the problem. Absence of
sence of
collective responsibility, absence of understanding of basic fair due
process
principles, absence of any desire/interest/percieved need to discuss
preceeding
= very real problem (online and off).
> I really do feel like most of the Baha'is on Beliefnet _were_ opposed to SeekerAlfa's attack on Steve Marshall,
Never met SeekerAlfa, never saw the attack, don't know what opposition
occured, would be willing to take a look.
(Must factor in that Mr Marshall is from NZ and that initself provides
some provocation ;-)
>and I think that many (other than FEffie's two pals) were
disappointed and disgusted at his sneaking back on to Beliefnet, and
making outrageous personal insults.
Other than yourself, Dave F, Karen and Steve I can recall no one
raising
any direct objection with the perps. There was tons of psuedo
spiritual
advice on how to cope with lifes testing and anoying insect
bites...but
nothing worthy of Abdul Baha's instructions.
> Getting back to you and D95, I think it is
> possible that most Baha'is had grown weary of the antics of the three, and figured they don't respond to helpful hints anyway.
Don't buy it Pat...Lots of new Baha'i blood came onto and through Bnet
at the
time (all clearly not sock puppets...Marie, Firestorm, Terry,
Jim...)...a host
of Baha'i participants who saw the foaming saliva and the bite then
patted the
dog in the most unified spiritual manner.
> Did you get the feeling that D95 had any success in pursuading anyone that you really were an enmey of the faith?
Yes, Marie (German) bought it, hook line and sinker, and word filtered
back
through my community....how many? who knows? It's not the point...one
is twice
too many.
> >
> > How you "feel" about such behaviours is not reflected in or by the
> > broader
> > Baha'i community.
> >
>
> Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA, telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they said it much nicer.
Did they say they just wanted to pop in for a "social chat"? Was it
'nice'
to the point of not specifying the precise nature of the concern? Did
they
offer George a fair and open hearing in which he might defend/explain
himself?
Would such a hearing be governed by any of the principles and
practices we take for granted in Western Democracy?
My limited understanding is that George recieved a no questions asked
directive and jumped ship.
> My experience with the Baha'i community has been
> that for a Baha'i to jump up and liable another Baha'i, bad things for the party making the allegation, follows like thunder after lightening, unless the allegation can be made to stick, as it has with those who have
> falsely made such allegations.
This assertion only returns us to the scenario in which your good
fortune deminishes/negates the conclusions drawn from my/others bad
luck.
"I've never had an accident, the roads are as safe as they should be"
"I've never been bashed, we have enough police".
If what you say is (broad community) true Pat...then you should be
able to
point me towards the clear LSA handbook instructions on specific
(thunder
follows lightening)proceedurs for dealing with lible and serious
allegation?
And if you cannot direct me to such documents logic obliges I conclude
you
have bennefited from no more than dumb good luck...or a level of
collective intuitive Divine Justice that is manna to the spiritualy
mature community.
Snip
> > My 'impession' is that the 'self-appointed Guardians' rulled Bnet
> > Pat...
>
> It is a commercial site, Rod!
So what Pat! It matters not a jot what the hoardings flashed, nor what
Bnut
Inc ignored, nor what collusion transpired behind the sceens, nor how
many
CB's resided in the wood work....the self appointed Guardians rulled
and the
vast majority of Baha'i participants did not question let alone
criticise.
> > When the same Guardianship roleplay has been conducted here your ear
> > wriggling
> > and tongue poking has been polite or tempered to the point of
> > invisibility.
>
> Missed me.
Wasn't aiming at you Pat...but at the psuedo community in which
manners
over ride the need for direct response. Abdul Baha did not advocate
that
when the wild Arab attacks the Friend we politely remind him of his
manners.
> >
> > (I refer you to the DST's stint as Guardian and her designation of my
> > collusion with anti-Faith factions).
> >
>
> So, are you saying that Susan accused you of collusion? Did you ask her for evidence?
Yes, she did. Yes I did. I believe her response was along the lines of
"Why should I"? (provide evidence). I believe there are a couple of
down on
bended knee pleading threads along the lines of 'Dear Susan' and 'Why
you should'....I'll go look later.
> This approach has worked for me.
Oh I don't doubt it Pat...your a good guy...the rules of conduct that
apply to good guys are quite distnct from those that apply to
colluding
members of the anti Faith faction.
Snip
> and I'll be happy to set on her, and have her set on me.
I flush red when you go graphic Pat ;-)
Snip
> Oh, I think I see a lot of the culture of denial. You've had problems with Susan, too, and I missed it - that is my inferrence.
Oh lots of Baha'is have serious dog bite problems with lots of other
Baha'is
......it's easy to miss.............................everyone does ;-)
Snip
> Yes, and I've shared my observations how, in general, the miscreant in general gets pummeled, and either leaves the forum with their tail between their legs, or resigns the faith. Your experience with D95 was the
> exception.
Dust, Pith, Susan, Starthingy, Rick S....That's five online
"exceptions"
just for lucky me alone.
I never saw any of them get "pummeled", driven off or resign.
I'd settle for seeing someone say- "Why are you saying that"
Snip
> > The
> > demonstrable reality is that the "Self-Appointed Guardians" (online
> > and off) can,did and
> > do get away with making any dam bogus allegation they choose with
> > hardly a whisper of question, challenge or complaint from the
> > gallery/community.
>
> Wrong. SeekerAlfa accused someone of being a CB, and they left B-Net never to return.
Unfamiliar, interested in gallery response......exception to the rule?
;-)
> Pithbegone attacked a bunch of Baha'is as 'Talismanians' and claimed he was leaving in embarassment. When he returned as Effie,
> he got humiliated again after his attack on Karen, and I think he swore of C&C, at least - I hope he kept that promise.
He may have stayed off C&C, but the allegations/attacks continued
without
gallery objection over two year period. Delete one counter case.
> D95 went after you like a fly after a steak, and that appears to be an exception, which I think occurred because B-Net got volunteer moderators so that he felt he could get away with it.
No, I hounded the hound with such persistance that Bnet was obliged to
introduce Hosts. Dust continued to post open attacks (confident that
the only consequence would be post deletion) and devoted much time to
innuendo and veiled accusation without gallery objection over two year
period. Delete one counter case.
> George Fleming attacked TRB as a CB group and he resigned from the
faith.
That's 'one' case with which I am partialy familiar...I will devote
some
precious flu time to going back to see 'who' called George into line,
'how soon' and over 'what' ;-)
> Are all these other stories new to you? If not,
> how come they don't seem to be reflected in your "demonstrable reality"?
Two out of four confirm my "demonstrable reality" and the remainder
are
yet to be seen...George and SeekerAlfa 'cases' would swing on how many
active Baha'i participants raised objections to their behaviour. If
all
we have is one or two silverbacks swinging verbal clubs then we do not
have any online representation of any collective responsibility.
> >
> > 'Enemy of the Faith' is one the most serious allegations one Baha'i
> > can
> > make against another...up there, in my opinion, with 'thief, rapist,
> > pedophile'...and you can be subject to such an allegation without any
> > significant recognition of the charge. In fact you can waste years of
> > your
> > life trying to get 'anyone' (let alone "just about everyone") to
> > recognise and respond to the charge.
> >
> >
>
> Sure, it is an awful thing to say, but I get called stuff like that all the time. Errol will say I've been disobeying the Guardian, or the UHJ.
Uh Uh Pat..."disobeying the Guardian" might be "an awful thing to say"
but it does not constitute an allegation/attack. Every Baha'i might
reasonably be said to have disobeyed Guardian/Manifestation/God at
some point.
> The thing you ought to remember, is most reasonable people can recognize an internet kook at some point.
The thing 'we' ought to remember is that most reasonable communities
can recognise and distinguish between mere insult and serious
allegations.
Baha'is, generaly, cannot and display little or no interest in
examining
the perameters of such (flea/dog bite) determinations.
> I don't feel like I need to defend my reputation from the attack of every internet kook.
No....me neither Pat...I would rather the company of mates who leap to
the
defence of person and principle before I can open my mouth. That's
what I've
got in my area, in my workplace, even in my local watering hole among
sinful
semi strangers.....I wonder what is wrong with me that I have never
had it
within the Baha'i community?
> They can say I like boys, they can say I am paid to be here. They've got "internet kook" written all over them.
I cannot afford to dismiss serious allegations (online or off) as kook
fodder...nor can any sane/just community.
If there is a pedophile near my children I need to know.
If there is an enemy within the community I need to know.
The only way I can know is on consideration of the evidance and
through
open, fair, structured defence.
> I might refute one of their allegations the first time they make it, but I can't respond to each and every regurgo-libel.
That, according to Abdul Baha, is your choice. You may defend yourself
against
attack, or not, as you see fit. But if you are attacked, seriously
attacked,
I have no such choice. I am obliged to defend you/anyone from serious
assult.
Anyone who thinks this edict relates only to physical violence knows
nothing of the nature of violence and abuse.
Snip
> >not one of them was vigalent or firm in defending the
> > principle
> > of 'substantiate or retract' when an "Enemy of the Faith" allegation
> > was
> > made.
> >
>
> At the time, I encouraged everyone to leave.
Funny....That's my advocasy for anyone who works in a factory, office,
home or community of faith that refuses to consider the implimentation
of safety proceedures and an end to abuse.
> >
> > Rod,on the list, below 'Enemy of the Faith', above 'violator of the
> > Covenant', beside 'Mad,bad,CB', between 'Disassociated' and 'Inactive'
> > and within 'Had my chain pulled by obfuscating Baha'is in denial
> > thrice
> > too often'.
>
> I'm sorry he hurt your feelings.
He didn't and that's not the point Pat.
It is OH&S issue...and trust/responsibility betrayed by the
collective.
>These sorts of things get me excited the first time I see someone
going after me, but at some point, I realize it is about them, not me.
Pat....If someone is going after you without cause, down the
thoroughfare
or down through the theads...and we can all see, and no one does/says
a thing...then it isn't about either of you....it's about us and
principle.
>
> Over the past year....snip
I will bore you with the alternate rules for free range hens another
time
Pat.
All the best.
Rod.
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/9/03 1:50 pm:
Speaking of yourself i presume?.......Errol
>
> Paul
Brian Walker
>
> Brian is an AO loyalist and insider. I'm sure he's privy to more
> information than you any day.
>
Greetings Nima,
actually I am not much of an insider. More like a bystander.
Brian
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> > Here's another good one:
> >
> > http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame45.html
>
> Speaking of yourself i presume?.......Errol
Wrong again, Error! But then, you're used to that!
Seegar
"...Or the TRB thread in which S Manic
>asserts
>I am a member of the anti Faith faction and no one says "Yea? Proove
>it Sue"...
>
>All the best.
>
>Rod.
Rod,
Ahem.....I'm feeling ingnored by lack of due process or rather due
diligence. I did say "Yea?"
Peace,
Chris
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> (snip)
> Errol has adduced as "evidence" this article from Sunday's
> Observer:
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032772,00.html
>
> This is a personal piece by a journalist who knew Kelly,
> and knew Kelly's view of Saddam, and his support for
> the war.
>
> Evidence of Kelly's support for the war, it certainly
> is.
>
> However, the article does not mention the word "Baha'i"
> anywhere in it - so how Error can think this article
> proves the tacit encouragement of the UHJ for Dr Kelly
> to support the war is beyond me.
>
> It seems to me that Kelly's opinions about Iraq and
> Saddam came from his personal experience as a part of
> his work.
>
> I would have disagreed with him. I was always opposed
> to following an American neo-conservative agenda into
> making war on Iraq.
That is a good point. There have been attacks on Iraq's WoMD capability, such as the IDF raid
on Osiryk, and these sorts of air raids could be categorized as a war, were several of them
strung together. This war against the WoMD programme would be a contrast with the recent Gulf
War.
In the early 1990s, when the US attacked the Iraqi Army, there were months of warnings, and a
month of air raids before the US Army, and Marines, crossed the border. In 2003, after the
first oil will was lit off in Iraq, one air raid was launched against Sadam Hussein himself, and
the coalition ground forces charged across the border to see if they would find WoMD as they
secured those oil fields.
It is quite possible for someone to have advocated a war against Iraq, to break up the WoMD
programme, w/o advocating an invasion and armed occupation of the country as was ultimately
done.
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BB7A0531.36938%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> > in article 3F5407F9...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> > kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/9/03 3:01 am:
> >
> > > Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA,
> > > telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they said
> > > it much nicer.
> >
> > Now Pat the words "stop acting like such a jackass" were never in the
> > letter.
Right. That is exactly what, "they said it much nicer" means. Had I said that the letter
said, "Stop acting like a jackass" (note the funny dots before _Stop_ and after _jackass_.
Those are called _quotation_marks_. The quotation marks get used to indicate the verbatim
terminology.
> > Here is the letter ordering me off certain newsgroups
Yup; they _did_ say it much nicer!
> > because you
> > and Susan Maneck snitched on me to the UK NSA for having a flame war with
> > two ex-bahais and "Disappointed Atheist" (Hikmat Paul Hammond).........Errol
Hysterical! Try this: they told you to shut up because after you spammed the US NSA with
hundreds of repetitive messages, threatening to keep spamming then until they obeyed you, the
UK NSA was convinced that you were an internet kook, and that is for starters, just my theory,
of course ...
>
> > Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
> >
> >
> > The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what
> > is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national
> > Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, thanks for pointing out the evidence that proves
> what Pat was saying. I'm sure no-one doubted it anyway, but
> it's nice to see the actual words.
They tried to reason with him first, and even thanked him for his cooperation when he said he
was off of TRB. Of course, when he CCed the UK NSA, on his spams to the US NSA, which
included recent messages he was copying from TRB, it became pretty clear to the UK NSA, that
he was not good for what he said, what they had already thanked him for.
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F5407F9...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > Uh huh, the second list was a projection which he variously acknowledges as
> > making up, and disavows making up.
> [snip]
> > Nope. I point out a lack of a letter. I was hoping for some responsibility, > some ownership. I was hoping maybe the author could say, "yeah, I made up
> > that list, and you do have a good point; it reflects my
> > opinions of the Baha'is; my comments about how the list reflects on the
> > Baha'is, were wrong; thanks". Nobody wants to own the BS around here,
> > though.
> [snip]
> > Rod, I pointed out there was no letter from the AO establishing his list.
> > It is something he made up, and it seems he wants to deny that at times.
>
> Pat, I don't understand why you still aren't getting it.
I feel like I got it. Is it possible I already got it? If I don't get it, will it be a tragedy? Even if I haven't gotten it, you tried and that counts,
somewhere.
> The issue is
> not, and has never been, whether or not my list is "made up" or
Originally, I did not think it was an issue that you had made it up; then it seemed you denied it, and even wanted to call it an observation. Now, I'd say
you've made an issue of it.
>
> whether I have a letter from the AO to establish it. I specifically
> stated when I first posted the list that this is NOT OFFICIAL but
Right, but, you did proceed to judge the Baha'is based on a list which you made up, and that seemed to me to be bizarre. Your speculation that your list might
become the basis for some future list, is fantastic.
>
> could perhaps BECOME official in the FUTURE, if current trends in the
> Baha'i community continue. Mainly, the list was an attempt to point
> out, in a somewhat humorous tone, the serious problem I see with the
> way many Baha'is tend to categorize people in their own minds
> according to their relationship with the Baha'i Faith and its
Does it remind you of the Christians? Well, that would be troubling, but it could have been resolved in a few words, "At times, the Baha'is remind me of the
Christians."
>
> institutions. You ask for evidence. I respond that the evidence is
Ah, like space, it is not so much perceived directly as hypothesized about. I have my impressions and you have yours. Don't expect me to laugh at all of your
impressions.
>
> everywhere -- in the stories of many unenrolled and ex-Baha'is and in
> the statements made by some BIGS on the internet. I do not have time
> right now to go gather a few dozen links to show this, but perhaps
> sometime I will.
There have been lots of interesting incidents on the internet. Have fun.
Pat Kohli
in the "Reply". I reserve the right to try again later.
Previously, I had referred to several incidents on the internet, most at
Beliefnet, and you had wanted to add at least one incident here where
you claim that Susan may have called you an enemy of the faith, or
something like that.
I think/hope that the existence of some of these incidents can be
conceded, and, if not, I can look up the particulars. I had the
impression that you did not recall the SeekerAlfa event, and, perhaps
the earlier Pithy event, so I provide some details here.
#1
Handle Target Forum Disposition
SeekerAlfa Steve Marshall B-Net Left, never to return
The handle really is SeekerAlpha. The thread can be seen at this URL:
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=436&discussionID=47929
Apparently, I didn't get so much as a word in on this thread, though it
is possible I may have spoke up elsewhere. Demise told Seeker he or she
was wrong. Roger agreed up to the point where SeekerA wanted to kick
down doors. Demise was direct; and Steve grabbed the cow by the tail.
The usual suspects applaud SeekerA, but that is the end of SeekerA.
#2
Pithbegone (possibly alleged
Talismanians?) B-Net Claimed to be
leaving, returned covertly as Effie
Pithy really seemed to me to be aching to start fights, despite his
claims in his insulting posts that he does not want to start fights.
Here is a thread he started to denounce the disenrolled Karen and Juan,
though he says he is apologizing for calling someone a monster - it all
runs backwards.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=42243&messages_per_page=4
Later that month he announces his departure from B'net, apparently due
to recognition of the trouble he has been causing, even though he
doesn't seem to see his role in causing it.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=5608&discussionID=45327
#3
Effie Karen B-Net Denounced as a
vampire, ????
It takes me a long time to find B-net messages; the search functions are
lousy. The gist is he called Karen a vampire, even though he has been
skulking about B-net as Effie, having told all he was leaving for
causing controversy and strife. I had progressively recognized him, and
his denunciation of anyone as a vampire was too much for me to take, and
I think I did speak up. I'd really expect that for most regular people,
it is hard to have any respect for someone who has run off with their
tail between their legs, and then slithered back under camouflage, and
then called anyone anything - what is the point in pointing out that
they've been bad? They've acknowledged it and then forgotten it or
something.
#4
D95 Rod B-Net (fill in)
I've seen it; you've seen it. I did not know that Effie came back to
C&C, too.
#5
George TRB TRB Resigned from the
Baha'i Faith
George was Flaming. Among many things he said the newsgroup as a CB
group. He may have even repeated it a few times for emphasis.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=B987A713.6FA8%25george.fleming2%40btinternet.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=B98711FC.6EC3%25george.fleming2%40btinternet.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=B987A71C.6FA8%25george.fleming2%40btinternet.com
At some point he asked me to take my concerns to his NSA, as he had
wearied of my naggings. They asked him nicely to check out of TRB while
they looked into it, and he agreed. While they were looking into it, he
spammed the US NSA, ccing his own NSA (if you can believe it) with
messages which included excerpts of current messages he was copying from
TRB (even though had said he would stay out of TRB while they looked
in). Then they told him nicely to behave (since asking nicely did not
work) and he resigned; I believe he posted the latter messages.
#*
If you say that Susan has called you an enemy of the faith here on TRB,
tell me what she said, and when. Show a link if you've got one.
My impression of Beliefnet is that it became less and less Baha'i while
I was there. The moderators were the end. Ideally we should have
chosen our own moderators, or moderated boards which we don't contribute
on. B'net had a moderator who was plugged in w/ two or three trouble
makers, and that mod could block complaints about them, while letting
them harass contributors in ways they never did in the past. I heard
after I left that they banned quoting from previous posts, or links to
whatever one was trying to refer to; since it was almost impossible to
follow up right under the message one was responding to, it seemed to me
that all hope of anything but the most simple conversations had been
taken away. How anyone could put up w/ that is amazing to me.
Rod
Did ya?
Good on ya!
I must have missed it.
I just went back and had a look and appart from in principle support
from my anti faith faction members (Randy, Karen, Dermod...) the best
I could find was Pat telling Susan such accusations are "not nice".
Thing is Chris...given the proliferation of such accusations (Enemy
of Faith, CB, violator of Covenant) and the scant objections raised
I am wondering why so much (any) time is devoted to questioning its
frequence/significance and no time/interest is devoted to examining
its origin/cause.
Any good military commander knows that if you wish to create and
maintain unity one of the best ways is to have a good enemy. I does
not have to be a real enemy or even a dangerous enemy....'they' just
need to be clearly identified as "against us".
Other faiths have Satan,Hell and the apocalypse.
Lacking these phantoms many Baha'is seem driven to devise their own
"Enemy of the Faith" deamons...(which is why Erics list rings such clear
and obvious bells).
I certainly look the part...but hell....shouldn't Susan be satisfied
with Dermod? ;-)
> Peace,
A hypothetical propisition at best;-)
Rod.
errol9
Talk.religion.bahai & a number of other internet groups.
US national Spirtual Assembly <usns...@usbnc.org>
Universal House Of Justice <secre...@bwc.org>
American Bahais
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net>
Proffessor Susan Maneck
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
in article 3F5541A1...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 3/9/03 1:19 am:
> Paul Hammond wrote:
>
>> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:<BB7A0531.36938%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>>> in article 3F5407F9...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
>>> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/9/03 3:01 am:
>>>
>>>> Sure, but George Fleming posted the letter here which he got from his NSA,
>>>> telling him to stop acting like such a jackass; though, of course, they
>>>> said it much nicer.
>>>
>>> Now Pat the words "stop acting like such a jackass" were never in the
>>> letter.
>
> Right. That is exactly what, "they said it much nicer" means. Had I said
> that the letter said, "Stop acting like a jackass" (note the funny dots before _Stop_ and after _jackass_. Those are called _quotation_marks_. The quotation marks get used to indicate the verbatim terminology.
>
>>> Here is the letter ordering me off certain newsgroups
>
> Yup; they _did_ say it much nicer!
>
>>> because you
>>> and Susan Maneck snitched on me to the UK NSA for having a flame war with
>>> two ex-bahais and "Disappointed Atheist" (Hikmat Paul Hammond).........Errol
>
> Hysterical! Try this: they told you to shut up because after you spammed the
> US NSA with hundreds of repetitive messages, threatening to keep spamming
> then until they obeyed you, the UK NSA was convinced that you were an internet
>
>>
>>> Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
>>>
>>>
>>> The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what
>>> is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national
>>> Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
>>>
>> Yeah, thanks for pointing out the evidence that proves
>> what Pat was saying. I'm sure no-one doubted it anyway, but
>> it's nice to see the actual words.
>
> They tried to reason with him first, and even thanked him for his cooperation
> when he said he was off of TRB. Of course, when he CCed the UK NSA, on his
> spams to the US NSA, which included recent messages he was copying from TRB,
> it became pretty clear to the UK NSA, that
> he was not good for what he said, what they had already thanked him for.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
The words SPAM or KOOK are not mentioned in the letter. Whats the matter with you Pat Kohli did they not teach you read properly at your American schools.
Its ok for this same National Assembly to support a scientist who committed suicide all over the world, because he was afraid of being disgraced for telling lies to the parliament inquiry. But at the same time act as a circus master with a whip and order other members off the internet because two American Bahais Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck decides he is a Kook and reports him. As long as the Bahai Faith allows American Bahai like Pat Kohli to continue to call me a JACKASS, AND A KOOK on the internet I will be sending this letter to the UHJ and the US NSA.
George Errol Fleming.
Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
Letter from NSA of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom'
27 Rutland gate, London SW7 1PD
October 18,2002
Mr George Fleming
Dear Baha'i friend,
The national Spirtual assembly appreciates your desire to
defend the good name of our beloved Faith and the sincerity with which you seek to do so. However, uour recent imvolvement in certain email discussion groups may have inadvertently helped the cause of those very individuals from whom you are seeking to protect the Faith, and this has become a source of some concern to the National Assembly.
The national Spiritual Assembly therefore instructs you, with immediate effect, to cease and disist from participating in the SCI, TRB and ARB e-discussion lists and in any other unmoderated discussions conducted over email. Further, you are requested to cease direct communication with Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck and the national Spirtual Assembbly of the United States. However should you have a grievance which you would like to bring to the attention of the latter body you are kindly asked
to refer such a matter to the attention of the National Assembly of the United Kingdom.
The national Assembly further asks you to refrain from
discussing any of the issues raised in this letter with anyone other than Councellor Shahriavi, the national Spirtual Assembly of the United Kingdom, or Auxiliary Board members Denis Coyle and Ann O'Sullivan.
The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 3/9/03 1:19 am:
> Hysterical! Try this: they told you to shut up because after you spammed the
> US NSA with hundreds of repetitive messages, threatening to keep spamming then
> until they obeyed you, the UK NSA was convinced that you were an internet
kook, and that is for starters, just my theory, of course ...
Since when has the sending posts to the UK & US NSA's and the UHJ any
connection to posting to TRB, ARB or SCI?
Finally what Bahai law, civil law or internet law does Pat Kohli believe the
Bahai AO have the right reprimand George Fleming by the UK NSA and order
him off TRB ARB and SCI? By what law do the 42 000 internet newsgroups come
under the jurisprudence of the Bahai Kitab-I-Aqdas?
Errol
Subject: Letter from NSA + resigning letter
Letter from NSA of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom'
27 Rutland gate, London SW7 1PD
October 18,2002
Mr George Fleming
Dear Baha'i friend,
The national Spirtual assembly appreciates your desire to
defend the good name of our beloved Faith and the sincerity with which you
seek to do so. However, uour recent imvolvement in certain email discussion
groups may have inadvertently helped the cause of those very individuals
from whom you are seeking to protect the Faith, and this has become a
source of some concern to the National Assembly.
The national Spiritual Assembly therefore instructs you, with immediate
effect, to cease and disist from participating in the SCI, TRB and ARB
e-discussion lists and in any other unmoderated discussions conducted over
email. Further, you are requested to cease direct communication with Pat
Kohli and Susan Maneck and the national Spirtual Assembbly of the United
States. However should you have a grievance which you would like to bring
to the attention of the latter body you are kindly asked
to refer such a matter to the attention of the National Assembly of the
United Kingdom.
The national Assembly further asks you to refrain from
discussing any of the issues raised in this letter with anyone other than
Councellor Shahriavi, the national Spirtual Assembly of the United Kingdom,
or Auxiliary Board members Denis Coyle and Ann O'Sullivan.
The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what is now
being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national Assembly will
have no choice but to take further action.
With loving Baha'i greetings.
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 2/9/03 3:47 pm:
Dermod why is paul a disappointed atheist, and when was the last time you
said your prayers and attended Mass?.............Errol
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> in article 3F5541A1...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 3/9/03 1:19 am:
>
> > Hysterical! Try this: they told you to shut up because after you
spammed the
> > US NSA with hundreds of repetitive messages, threatening to keep
spamming then
> > until they obeyed you, the UK NSA was convinced that you were an
internet
> kook, and that is for starters, just my theory, of course ...
>
> Since when has the sending posts to the UK & US NSA's and the UHJ any
> connection to posting to TRB, ARB or SCI?
When they all emanate from an ass called Error!
> Finally what Bahai law, civil law or internet law does Pat Kohli believe
the
> Bahai AO have the right reprimand George Fleming by the UK NSA and order
> him off TRB ARB and SCI? By what law do the 42 000 internet newsgroups
come
> under the jurisprudence of the Bahai Kitab-I-Aqdas?
You were told all of this months ago. Now, spy, cease from raising this
issue as a smokescreen for your current activities as an agent of the AO.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"error9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BB7C095F.36B77%err...@ntlworld.com...
> Dermod why is paul a disappointed atheist,
That's not for me to say.
> and when was the last time you
> said your prayers and attended Mass?...........
None of your feckin' business.
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 4/9/03 12:40 am:
Are you a dissappointed Atheist also like Paul Dermod?......Errol
errol9
MO...@btinternet.com wrote on 4/9/03 12:40 am:
>
So you agree with the UK NSA sendin me this letter Dermod?...Errol
Letter from NSA + resigning letter which breaches UK values of
No1) HUMAN RIGHTS No2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH No3 FAIR PLAY