Munafiqin/hypocrites masquerading as 'liberals'
Freethought110
1 From: ulldemo <ulldemo@y...>
Date: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:01pm
Subject: Future Dreams
Hello Karen,
Thanks for the kind invitation.
I'm not sure if I qualify for membership here, "liberal Baha'i" is a
label that somehow I feel no longer comfortable with.
I have moved on, yet again. Perhaps "spiritual anarchist"?
In 1967 I was a Hippy, and perhaps one could say I'm still a Hippy at
heart, it was such s strong influence. Then in 1974 I would have been
described by the label "Punk", that was back in the early days of
that movement, with all its defiance and eccessive energy. I only
practised a moderate version, -more of an observer, really-, which
lasted no more than a year or so. After that my carreer took off and
my new-found wealth turned me in to a shop-aholic with a taste for
expensive Art Deco and modern Italian furniture, all of which
combined qualified me as a "Yuppie".
There is still some residue of ALL those characteristics, I must say,
if I do an honest self-check.
However, by the time I became a Baha'i in the early eighties I tried
hard to dissociate myself from those former labels. I tried to purge
every last one of my past ideologies as I proceeded in my immersion
into Baha'u'llah and poverty-stricken third world countries.
But the earlier memories have since caught up, and I have found that
I can no longer deny certain aspects of my formative years. The
leopard doesn't change his spots, in essence.
So my accumulated memories are rather ecclectic. And due to their
ecclectic nature I have learnt to accomodate a large variety of human
types, and their various viewpoints. I know now that rich and poor
alike- all get their share of this "valley of tears". As Gurdjieff
once said, "On this planet we are all equally beggars."
But this has given me a glimpse of a greater picture: that somehow
freedom and spiritual growth seem to be interrelated, and that
what "freedom" ultimately means is the ability to adapt to whatever
circumstances present themselves. And as Baha'u'llah hinted, this can
only be done in a mature manner, consciously and and with an
awareness of one's responsibility to one's conscience and whatever
utopian dream for a future world one habors.
What's your dream, may I ask?
With loving greetings and best wishes for the success of Irfan9.
Ulla
2 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:26pm
Subject: Re: Future Dreams
At 02:01 AM 11/17/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello Karen,
>
>Thanks for the kind invitation.
>I'm not sure if I qualify for membership here, "liberal Baha'i" is a
>label that somehow I feel no longer comfortable with.
>I have moved on, yet again. Perhaps "spiritual anarchist"?
Dear Ulla,
"Spiritual anarchist" is o.k. with me. :-) Basically, I've invited
everybody from Zuhur whose email address I could find. So, that means you
qualify. I'm leaving the membership list visible to the group, so if I've
left somebody off that I shouldn't have let me know -- at least after
people have had a reasonable time to respond to the invitations I sent out.
>What's your dream, may I ask?
I'm not very much in the mood right now -- we can take it up later. Right
now, I'm just trying to get a list off the ground where we can hang out and
not rip each other up. (Maybe you could say my dream is to have a community
where we hang out and don't rip each other up. :-)) When I've got more
people on, I'll make an introductory kind of statement.
Love, Karen
3 From: Steve Marshall <asmarsh@e...>
Date: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:22pm
Subject: Dissidents and dissidence
I've been thinking recently about how the AO views what's gone down over
the last year or so within the dissident Baha'i community. I think the it
sees the dissidents as the opposition it's been warned about in the
writings, and is greatly comforted by the notion that it's promised victory
even if the forces of opposition combine to assist one another.
The AO, despite the rhetoric and despite the veneer, is very monolithic.
For example, the NZ NSA was willing to be walked over by the House when the
House made a snap decision, in the middle of an NSA investigation of Alison
and me, to have Alison summarily expelled. I expect the AO feels that
discord and in-fighting in the dissident camp is disastrous for the liberal
cause. That's because the AO is incapable of thinking like a liberal. My
experience is that liberal groups, the world over, engage in almost
constant in-fighting whereas conservative groups bottle it up for a period,
then explode or reach catastrophic melt-down. Neither method is perfect,
but I'd prefer constant in-fighting to cycles of suppression, purging and
revolution. What I'm saying is that the liberal camp isn't monolithic, it
doesn't have a centrally organised plan of attack or a leadership. It
carries on a campaign in a very organic fashion, largely through individual
and group initiative, and through simple rules - such as those guiding a
school of fish to act as though they are a single body. Actually, most of
the lasting achievements of the mainstream Baha'is are carried out that
way, too, and the AO increasingly fails to capitalise on its human
resources because of its top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.
Anyway, my guess is that the AO thinks the dissidents are pretty much dead
on the water, are wandering in the paths of delusion, or whatever
reassuring phrase floats the AO's boat at the moment. I think it's lulled
into a false sense of security. There are plenty of things happening
quietly in Baha'i liberal land, unaffected by the in-fighting, that the AO
ought to be worried about. For example:
o liberal, mainstream and conservative Baha'is continue to converse on a
range of lists
o Baha'i-only lists, like Bahai-discuss, demonstrate that mainstream
Baha'is are tired of being told what to think, and sick of calls for
conformity
o shrill fundies keep making outrageous statements on the Internet, and
their fellow mainstream Baha'is seem incapable of responding in a
convincing or articulate manner. Often the liberals manage much better to
point out the errors in their arguments
o lists like Unenrolled Baha'i and Talisman 9 are growing
o resources like the Baha'i Academics' Resource Library are being used by
a cross-section of Baha'is
o and damn it, the liberal Baha'is just keep regrouping!
Perhaps we fail to think like the AO when we look at the AO and fail to
discern any sign of strain. I'll bet that the pressure is building and
that's why nobody inside is talking about it. Five years ago, our NSA was
talking about administrative burn-out. Now it's back to full-time good news
stories and other cheerleading. That tells me the pressure has increased,
not decreased.
Thanks for letting me rave. I hope mild ad-homs against the AO are AOK.
ka kite
Steve
4 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sat Nov 16, 2002 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Dissidents and dissidence
Well, shoot, Steve, you stole my thunder. I was just planning on doing a
bit of looking at where the Baha'i liberals/dissidents/whatever-the-hell
are at. So I have all these well-composed words of wisdom sitting there,
awaiting the arrival of the rest of the troops, and you go and bring it up
yourself. And Alison accuses me of reading *her* mind!:-)
At 03:22 PM 11/17/02 +1300, you wrote:
>I've been thinking recently about how the AO views what's gone down over
>the last year or so within the dissident Baha'i community. I think the it
>sees the dissidents as the opposition it's been warned about in the
>writings, and is greatly comforted by the notion that it's promised victory
>even if the forces of opposition combine to assist one another.
Yes, the mainstream community has been programmed to see all opposition as
foredoomed to failure. Of course, most of all, it sees it as maliciously
intent on destroying the Faith, led by egotists who lust for leadership --
you know all the cliches as well as I do. It's amazing the stuff you hear,
if some of these people are speaking bluntly about what they think of us.
The comparison with various groups of covenant-breakers is always
there. They expect to be able to dance on our lonely graves when we depart
this earth, deserted and forgotten, buried by the rites of another
religion, having lived long enough to see all our hopes dashed. Of course,
the fact that they have completely manufactured in their minds what our
hopes are is neither here nor there.
>The AO, despite the rhetoric and despite the veneer, is very monolithic.
>For example, the NZ NSA was willing to be walked over by the House when the
>House made a snap decision, in the middle of an NSA investigation of Alison
>and me, to have Alison summarily expelled. I expect the AO feels that
>discord and in-fighting in the dissident camp is disastrous for the liberal
>cause.
Susan told me she thought so. Baha'is have this myth about unity. Unity
is the cure-all for every problem, and disunity is a disaster that will
destroy everything. That's why the Baha'i who actually sees a problem and
says so gets hammered for "causing disunity". But the reason the whole
liberal movement works is precisely because we do our own thing -- we do
what we're best at. A little advice and support from our friends is all we
need, and we keep plugging away at it.
>That's because the AO is incapable of thinking like a liberal. My
>experience is that liberal groups, the world over, engage in almost
>constant in-fighting whereas conservative groups bottle it up for a period,
>then explode or reach catastrophic melt-down.
Like the old cliche about Democrats I was telling you about. :-)
> Neither method is perfect,
>but I'd prefer constant in-fighting to cycles of suppression, purging and
>revolution.
Well, I plan to keep infighting to a minimum on this list. If fighting is
inevitable, I'd still rather it not be in my face. I do think, though,
that the people saying that the liberals are hopelessly split up into
factions are way off base. What we have are people with very different
temperaments and approaches -- which clash on occasion. Even Nima's
"Dunedin clique" consisted of three people, two of whom are married to each
other -- which I would hardly think rates the name "clique". :-) None of
the leading liberals really heads up a "faction" that I can tell. I mean,
I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop, and secret rituals involving
ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
>Anyway, my guess is that the AO thinks the dissidents are pretty much dead
>on the water, are wandering in the paths of delusion, or whatever
>reassuring phrase floats the AO's boat at the moment. I think it's lulled
>into a false sense of security. There are plenty of things happening
>quietly in Baha'i liberal land, unaffected by the in-fighting, that the AO
>ought to be worried about. For example:
>
> o liberal, mainstream and conservative Baha'is continue to converse on a
>range of lists
True. However, it seems to me that the quality of that discourse has gone
down in the time I've been out here. Maybe it's just me, but there are
times when I just feel like we just keep recycling the same old stuff.
> o Baha'i-only lists, like Bahai-discuss, demonstrate that mainstream
>Baha'is are tired of being told what to think, and sick of calls for
>conformity
Yes, even the most hidebound hardliner has been influenced by liberal
ideas, if even just from the perceived need to fight them.
> o shrill fundies keep making outrageous statements on the Internet, and
>their fellow mainstream Baha'is seem incapable of responding in a
>convincing or articulate manner. Often the liberals manage much better to
>point out the errors in their arguments
Although a lot of times the fundies are blissfully unaware of just how
*bad* they make the Faith look -- however, I've heard that some have had
phone calls from their friendly neighborhood ABM telling them to knock it
off.
> o lists like Unenrolled Baha'i and Talisman 9 are growing
Yes. Talisman seemed pretty stagnant for a while, but that counter just
keeps going up. And I've never had any trouble getting new subscribers for
UB, although there's a fairly high turnover. Some folks just need support
for a while, then move on with their lives.
> o resources like the Baha'i Academics' Resource Library are being used
by
>a cross-section of Baha'is
Oh, yeah. I've heard just recently the most conservative guy among the
locals has gone back to reading provisional translations again -- he can't
resist!
> o and damn it, the liberal Baha'is just keep regrouping!
We're here! We're queer!(mostly in the old-fashioned sense of that word) We
won't disappear! :-)
>Perhaps we fail to think like the AO when we look at the AO and fail to
>discern any sign of strain. I'll bet that the pressure is building and
>that's why nobody inside is talking about it. Five years ago, our NSA was
>talking about administrative burn-out. Now it's back to full-time good news
Well, I don't know. It seems lately like they've just been ignoring us.
There have been no sanctions on anybody since Alison's disenrollment. A
couple of people have been investigated -- notice that it was by NSA's and
not directly from Haifa -- but nothing has happened to anybody as a
result. A couple of stupid letters. But on the whole, it seems like they
are just moving on.
>stories and other cheerleading. That tells me the pressure has increased,
>not decreased.
>
>Thanks for letting me rave. I hope mild ad-homs against the AO are AOK.
Hey, not-so-mild ad homs against the AO are o.k. We only have to be nice to
each other, not anybody outside the group.
Love, Karen
5 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 0:58pm
Subject: Welcome
Good morning, everybody! (or good afternoon or evening as the case
may be where you are)
Well, it doesn't look like the troops are really rolling in yet.
Maybe that's just what I get for starting a list on a weekend. I
sent out over 20 invitations. Anyway, a warm welcome to you folks
that have shown up so far. This list is invitation-only, and not
listed in the Yahoo! directory or otherwise advertised.
Before starting up the list, I did some thinking about how to avoid
the problems we had on Zuhur, which I basically saw as an
overabundance of low-content posts, and the recurring infighting.
As far as the first problem, I found that people I talked to were not
unduly concerned about it, so I decided not to worry about it,
either. I put a three-post limit on, which I think is reasonable for
most everyday conversation, but I could lift it if a really
interesting discussion takes off. And I'm not likely to pounce on
anybody for overposting unless it really looks llke it's getting out
of hand.
As for the recurring infighting, I felt I had two choices: The first
was to be really restrictive about who I invited on, and I was
initially leaning in that direction. But I finally decided that
there's no way to do that fairly. If I excluded everyone that was
ever involved in an argument on Zuhur, I'd have to disallow people I
definitely wanted here. If I chose between two people who were
fighting each other, then I'd have to pick who I thought was at
fault, and I really didn't want to go there. Then, of course, those
that were excluded would find out and be hurt.
So, I'm left with the other option, which is that of simply not
allowing these kinds of fights to develop. I've got a "no flaming"
rule, and I'll enforce it. I'm sorry if that's too restrictive for
anybody, but I've *really* had it with fights among the liberals, and
the impression I get is that I'm not the only one. Vigorous debate
is fine, but just don't let it degenerate into personal attacks.
Anyhow, so that's how I set things up. I hope Irfan9 turns out to be
an enjoyable list to be on.
Love, Karen
6 From: Randy Burns <randy.burns4@g...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
Hi Karen
Good job in starting the list. In response to your comments:
> Before starting up the list, I did some thinking about how to avoid
> the problems we had on Zuhur, which I basically saw as an
> overabundance of low-content posts, and the recurring infighting.
I think the low-content posts are the result of just a few people.
Personally I think we have the right to exclude some people here. No one
has the right to be on every list and if you want to attract high quality
posters who also happen to have busy lives then you have to make some
choices. The internet provides plenty of venues for low content posters. I
finally got Cal to post on TRB for example and that is the kind of place
that is perfect for him. It may be extra trouble in his case because of his
use of Web TV but that's life.
I think the same is true with recurrent infighting. Like it or not there is
only one way to handle this and that is to eliminate the source of the
problem. Someone who would prefer to fight then talk should be kept off the
list.
> As far as the first problem, I found that people I talked to were not
> unduly concerned about it, so I decided not to worry about it,
> either. I put a three-post limit on, which I think is reasonable for
> most everyday conversation, but I could lift it if a really
> interesting discussion takes off. And I'm not likely to pounce on
> anybody for overposting unless it really looks llke it's getting out
> of hand.
If the group is kept selective such limits are probably unnecessary.
> As for the recurring infighting, I felt I had two choices: The first
> was to be really restrictive about who I invited on, and I was
> initially leaning in that direction. But I finally decided that
> there's no way to do that fairly. If I excluded everyone that was
> ever involved in an argument on Zuhur, I'd have to disallow people I
> definitely wanted here. If I chose between two people who were
> fighting each other, then I'd have to pick who I thought was at
> fault, and I really didn't want to go there. Then, of course, those
> that were excluded would find out and be hurt.
I think the list should be kept a secret but it may be too late for that.
My suggestion is that we continue to debate proposals for new members
"before" they are told about the group or ask for membership. Then perhaps
you can avoid some unpleasentness.
Anyway, dont' worry that the group is starting slow.
Cheers, Randy
7 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 2:44pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
>
>
>I think the list should be kept a secret but it may be too late for that.
Yes, it is. I invited just about everybody I knew had been on Zuhur,
whatever their track record. The reason is that I don't think we can be
certain to keep the list secret -- inevitably word will leak out and there
will be hurt feelings. The only person I didn't invite, at least among
those whose addresses I have, was Nima. And I thought hard about inviting
him, just to leave the door open -- because I'm pretty sure he won't be
interested right now. However, besides his temperamental nature, his
recent actions just put him beyond the pale of inclusion. He took Zuhur
back, bounced a couple of people, then suddenly shut it down, leaving the
subscribers stranded and without a private liberals-only list. Then he goes
off denouncing all the liberals as a bunch of backstabbers. If he wants to
separate himself from Baha'i liberals and go another direction, that's his
choice -- but he could have given our list back. Perhaps if things simmer
down, I'll invite him in the future; he has been our friend for a long
time, and it feels odd to exclude him. But I'm not going to allow him, or
anybody else here, to engage in personal fighting, and that's a rule he may
not want to live with.
Randy, there may be people who were lurking on the old Zuhur that I
missed. Please email me privately if you think of anybody that I should
have included, after waiting a little to give people time to respond to the
invitations.
>My suggestion is that we continue to debate proposals for new members
>"before" they are told about the group or ask for membership.
It's unlikely that anybody will ask for membership. I've set it for
"Closed membership", so no one can even ask for membership unless they know
the group exists, and know how to contact me. The only way somebody can
get on is if I send them an invitation or subscribe them directly. Group
members can make suggestions for who they think would be a good candidate
for membership, but they should be people who have a track record with
posting on liberal forums. Newbies should be directed to Talisman or
Unenrolled Baha'i.
> Then perhaps
>you can avoid some unpleasentness.
>
>Anyway, dont' worry that the group is starting slow.
It looks like this may be a smaller group than Zuhur was anyway. Probably,
not everyone I sent an invitation to will be interested, and I only sent
out 22 or so. "Unpleasantness" can be avoided by simply not letting it
happen.
Love, Karen
8 From: Ken <comet_tale@y...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 2:59pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
Hi Karen and all,
I'm eager to return to a community-style discussion group where we
can increase our friendship and new-found sense of expression in an
environment that harbors the true spirit of Baha'i, whatever element
of those ideals we individually cling to. Sorry to see Nima indulge
less than brotherly attitudes, because we can find combativeness and
dissension in the world at large without looking too hard. It's
painful to lose the one bond of unity I had with Baha'i-inspired
souls in this world, but I felt myself withdrawing from these groups
just as I had from the in-power Baha'i community. That was sad and
discouraging. And not necessary, as I see now.
Talk to you soon.
Ken
9 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
Dear Ken,
Welcome! Nice to see you here.
Well, you know, people are people -- we all have different hangups,
different temperaments. It is inevitable that we're going to
disagree sometimes. But I think on a discussion group, we need to
keep some limits on how we disagree with each other; otherwise,
things just fall apart. To say "I think Talisman's moderation is too
strict" or "I liked the old, unmoderated Talisman better" is a fair
statement of one's opinion. But to say "Those Talisman moderators
are all a bunch of blankety-blank censors who are trying to control
the liberal agenda" is just hurtful and leads nowhere, especially if
one expects to share a list with those very same Talisman moderators.
We are all friends here -- we share common experiences; we have
similar outlooks; we share a history. I don't think it should be
that darn impossible for us to get along. Anyway, I'm not granting
the right, on this list, for anybody to do any personal bashing.
That should keep anger and hurt feelings to a minimum. (Nothing can
eliminate that entirely, I don't think. Some people are just plain
more sensitive than others.)
So, no, Ken, it's not necessary to give up on our online community.
We can do better than we've been doing.
Love, Karen
-- In Irfan9@y..., "Ken" <comet_tale@y...> wrote:
> Hi Karen and all,
>
> I'm eager to return to a community-style discussion group where we
> can increase our friendship and new-found sense of expression in an
> environment that harbors the true spirit of Baha'i, whatever
element
> of those ideals we individually cling to. Sorry to see Nima
indulge
> less than brotherly attitudes, because we can find combativeness
and
> dissension in the world at large without looking too hard. It's
> painful to lose the one bond of unity I had with Baha'i-inspired
> souls in this world, but I felt myself withdrawing from these
groups
> just as I had from the in-power Baha'i community. That was sad and
> discouraging. And not necessary, as I see now.
>
> Talk to you soon.
>
> Ken
10 From: Randy Burns <randy.burns4@g...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 4:59pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
> He took Zuhur
> back, bounced a couple of people, then suddenly shut it down, leaving the
> subscribers stranded and without a private liberals-only list.
Just to set the record straight, this was largely my fault. I messed up
turning the ownership over to Nima and that left us with no one as
listowner. Since he was unable to get me back on as listowner, he was able
as moderator to shut down the list and then he simply changed the name of
Majnun. However he did change the tenor of the group which effectively
deprived us of a private liberal list.
> Then he goes
> off denouncing all the liberals as a bunch of backstabbers. If he wants
to
> separate himself from Baha'i liberals and go another direction, that's his
> choice -- but he could have given our list back. Perhaps if things simmer
> down, I'll invite him in the future; he has been our friend for a long
> time, and it feels odd to exclude him. But I'm not going to allow him, or
> anybody else here, to engage in personal fighting, and that's a rule he
may
> not want to live with.
Technically I didn't have to give the list back to him, but I didn't see any
point in keeping the list name if it engendered bad feelings. It might be
he is attached to the name, so we are better off to give it up.
> Randy, there may be people who were lurking on the old Zuhur that I
> missed. Please email me privately if you think of anybody that I should
> have included, after waiting a little to give people time to respond to
the
> invitations.
Since the membership list is open, and I think that is a good idea, I will
check it later in the week and see who I can add. We may have to personally
invite a few people. Did Steve Schole respond?
Cheers, Randy
11 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Welcome
At 03:59 PM 11/17/02 -0600, you wrote:
> > He took Zuhur
> > back, bounced a couple of people, then suddenly shut it down, leaving
the
> > subscribers stranded and without a private liberals-only list.
>
>Just to set the record straight, this was largely my fault. I messed up
>turning the ownership over to Nima and that left us with no one as
>listowner. Since he was unable to get me back on as listowner, he was able
>as moderator to shut down the list and then he simply changed the name of
>Majnun. However he did change the tenor of the group which effectively
>deprived us of a private liberal list.
O.K. Randy, thanks.
>Since the membership list is open, and I think that is a good idea, I will
>check it later in the week and see who I can add. We may have to
personally
>invite a few people. Did Steve Schole respond?
No, not yet. But I tried to phone him a couple days ago, and he was out of
town, so it's possible he hasn't got to his email yet. I know a couple of
people who have expressed interest that haven't shown up yet.
Love, Karen
12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
--- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
I mean,
> I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
Hi!
> and secret rituals involving
> ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
>
Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
I was off having a life (I worked Friday, Saturday and
Sunday, went for a walk with a mate on Saturday before
it got dark, and visited my girlfriend 40 miles down the
road in Cambridge last night)
Ah - that's news, actually - our relationship is now
just over 2.5 weeks old, though I've known her for much
longer than that (about 7 months). And, of course, to
Americans the idea that 40 miles is a long way is ludicrous
(though, this morning, in the freezing fog, I met a traffic
jam, decided to go home a different way, and it took me
nearly two hours to make the journey). Anyway, more details
on this to those who are interested via email, I guess.
Pleased to see this list. I hope it all goes well - who
knows, maybe Nima can even share a list with me without
anything bad happening - and I see that Karen has added
yet another string to her bow. We do rely on her so much,
for this, moderating beliefnet, and running her other
list Unenrolled Baha'i.
Karen, are you *sure* you're not the head of the NOCAL
cabal, insinuating its spider-like tentacles (??) into
Baha'i Cyberspace the world over?
Paul
13 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 0:41pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
--- In Irfan9@y..., "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@o...> wrote:
> --- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
>
> I mean,
> > I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
>
> Hi!
>
> > and secret rituals involving
> > ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
Well if it isn't my faithful archbishop the Very Reverend Paul
Hammond, the Exalted Lord of Video! (Hey, if we can't have fun once
in a while, being out here would drive any sane person nuts. :-))
>
> Ah - that's news, actually - our relationship is now
> just over 2.5 weeks old, though I've known her for much
> longer than that (about 7 months).
I'm glad things are going well in the romance department -- best of
luck to you both.
> Pleased to see this list. I hope it all goes well - who
> knows, maybe Nima can even share a list with me without
> anything bad happening - and I see that Karen has added
> yet another string to her bow.
Hey, it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. I'll probably
invite Nima over eventually. If I ask him now, I'll probably either
get no response or one that says various and sundry bad things about
liberal Baha'is. Anyhow, I'm reluctant to invite him so soon after he
announced that he and his "real friends" have separated themselves
from Baha'i liberalism. Right now, he's very into his new spiritual
thing -- and quite surprisingly, he's got folks over at Majnun/new
Zuhur that are quite into it with him. And he may be right about
convincing people to separate along with him -- none of the ex-
Zuhuristas that are actively posting over there have shown up here,
even people that have a history of showing up on every Baha'i list
there is.
He's got some interesting things in his files over there -- you
know, Nima's so knowledgeable about Babi stuff. And he's got this
system of meditation, has written a salat and "Nineteen
commandments" -- it's like he's creating a whole new religion.
Weird, but interesting.
We do rely on her so much,
> for this, moderating beliefnet, and running her other
> list Unenrolled Baha'i.
Well, right now it seems like things are pretty dead all over, except
for Talisman.
>
> Karen, are you *sure* you're not the head of the NOCAL
> cabal, insinuating its spider-like tentacles (??) into
> Baha'i Cyberspace the world over?
Ha! I'm not letting any secrets out. :-)
Love, Karen
>
> Paul
14 From: Avenarius <ave@a...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:59pm
Subject: Re: My 5 cents [Te Puna]
On Monday, 18th November 2002 at 22:57:13 GMT,
which was 23:57 in Bratislava, Slovakia,
Karen Bacquet wrote to te_puna in her 1036 bytes heavy email:
KB> However, I sent out 26 invitations in all, and the Irfan9 counter
KB> stands at 14 (soon to be 15 with Daniela), so that's a little over
KB> half. There are still some stellar names not on my membership list
KB> yet -- Juan hasn't responded, nor has Steve Scholl.
Perhaps if you let them know the all-star cast already present on
Irfan9 -- see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irfan9/members -- they
won't hesitate to join. I was particularly delighted to observe the
presence of Mr. Grim Reaper (satire ain't flame war?!). Ron House is
another missing stellar name and, I've got to say, Cal -- I mean if
your email program is worth the name you can set up filters for folks
you can't put up with. And if Karen has the energy to enforce a
per-day limit, why not welcome Cal or the Thousand-Nommed Lady? What
about Bill Duquet? I remember he was kicked off Zuhur many months ago
in exactly the same manner as Steve and Paul only recently -- it was
presented as a fact of life to the rest of the subscribers (and I
remember Steve wondering about that back then) --, and Cal hates Bill,
but is there anything factual to speak against his liberal
credentials? Where does Karen draw the line about whom to invite?
--
Yours,
Alex.
www.avenarius.sk
[processed by "The Bat!", Version 1.60c]
15 From: Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:23pm
Subject: Re: My 5 cents [Te Puna]
At 12:59 AM 11/19/02 +0100, you wrote:
>On Monday, 18th November 2002 at 22:57:13 GMT,
>which was 23:57 in Bratislava, Slovakia,
>Karen Bacquet wrote to te_puna in her 1036 bytes heavy email:
>
>KB> However, I sent out 26 invitations in all, and the Irfan9 counter
>KB> stands at 14 (soon to be 15 with Daniela), so that's a little over
>KB> half. There are still some stellar names not on my membership list
>KB> yet -- Juan hasn't responded, nor has Steve Scholl.
>
>Perhaps if you let them know the all-star cast already present on
>Irfan9 -- see
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irfan9/members>http://groups.yahoo.com/group
/Irfan9/members
>-- they
>won't hesitate to join. I was particularly delighted to observe the
>presence of Mr. Grim Reaper (satire ain't flame war?!).
No, it's not. Dermod only kicks fundie butt; he doesn't kick liberal butt,
even when he thinks they deserve it. :-)
>Ron House is
>another missing stellar name and, I've got to say,
Ron has been invited.
>Cal -- I mean if
>your email program is worth the name you can set up filters for folks
>you can't put up with.
Cal has been invited, too.
> And if Karen has the energy to enforce a
>per-day limit, why not welcome Cal or the Thousand-Nommed Lady?
Parvin is already here; she just subscribed today. As far as the limit
goes, I'm not inclined to be too much of an ogre about it, just so folks
keep it in mind.
>What
>about Bill Duquet? I remember he was kicked off Zuhur many months ago
>in exactly the same manner as Steve and Paul only recently -- it was
>presented as a fact of life to the rest of the subscribers (and I
>remember Steve wondering about that back then) --, and Cal hates Bill,
>but is there anything factual to speak against his liberal
>credentials?
I don't know Bill D. well enough to feel comfortable with him. Here, I
think it's not a matter of thinking who is "bad" enough to be excluded, but
deciding who is trusted enough to be included.
>Where does Karen draw the line about whom to invite?
Fairly strictly, really. I don't want to leave out any of our old-time
friends, but this is not an open list.
I want only people with a liberal posting history that we know pretty
well. On the other hand, I don't think we should exclude old friends
because of whatever foibles they've got, either. Who knows? Maybe people
think I've got a few. :-) Anyway, I think consistently enforcing a
no-flaming rule ought to keep any differences from getting out of hand.
Love, Karen
george.fleming2
actually are the rules .
No 1) Does the subscriber have to declare they believe in the writings of
any one of the following (the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha'a or Shoghi
Effendi to first to be called a Baha'i?
No 2) Does the subscriber have to refute the authority of today's AO?
No3) Can a subscriber just believe in the writings of the Bab and
Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha and refute Shoghi Effendi?
No 4) Can the subcsriber refute all except Baha'u'llah or any one of the
four mentioned in any sequence?
No 5) Can the subscriber refute all of the Baha'i teachings and believe
strongly the AO?
No 6) If in accordance with the Baha'i laws regards the W&T and the Covenant
have not all mentioned above become unofficially named Covent-breakers and
therefore the list should be open to all CB's and indeed anyone on planet
earth who are not listed and numbered a member of the Baha'i Faith?
Finally what is the defination of a liberal Baha'i?...................GF
in article newscache$ttzs5h$zky1$1...@elise.onthenet.com.au, Freethought110 at
Freetho...@bohemian.org wrote on 19/11/02 3:33 am:
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for this. As a Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan (okay, druid),
I didn't receive any invite to this. I would like to reply here to one
point:
"Freethought110" (Freetho...@bohemian.org) writes:
> Irfan9
>
> 3 From: Steve Marshall <asmarsh@e...>
> Date: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:22pm
> Subject: Dissidents and dissidence
>
>
> I've been thinking recently about how the AO views what's gone down over
> the last year or so within the dissident Baha'i community. I think the it
> sees the dissidents as the opposition it's been warned about in the
> writings, and is greatly comforted by the notion that it's promised victory
> even if the forces of opposition combine to assist one another.
>
I do not agree.
Of course, there's a large number of individuals included under those
two letters AO, and some lesser ones may have the misconception you state.
However, the guys at the top (and not just the nine) are very much aware
that this is a power gig. It's an issue of maintaining personal power,
life time control at the top. It's ordinary politics, and guys who are not
at the top can delight in the opportunity to rise there on the death of
those now there, and to bask in the glitter of titles, ranks and perks on
the way.
I can discuss this at greater length, but I don't think anyone need be
confused on the point. Anyone honestly considering the issue of Baha'i
liberals knows that these are the opposite of the opposition Baha'u'llah,
etc. spoke about. These are the victims of oppression. The opposition
spoken of was of two kinds, external and internal. By abandoning its
principles, Baha'i has little to worry about on the external front and the
world scene is consequently so much darker, as it was Baha'i that was so
ideally placed to prevent the War Against Terrorism. On the internal
front, Baha'i only had to worry about power seekers, and, ten thousand
times alas, they seized power already, as any unpartisan observer is so
very well aware.
To the Future, Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Freethought110
Whoever allows themselves to be used by a certain agenda these days is
christened "liberal" by certain people. God help the one, however, who steps
outside of the box.
--
Freethought110
"george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B9FFC5B8.1AB0%george....@ntlworld.com...
Mr Mahdi
A "liberal" bahai and a "non liberal" bahai are the same thing, but one is more
"less literal" in interpreting bahai texts than the other. "Liberal" bahais
usually try to make bahaism more palatable to secular Western intellectuals
while the "non liberal" bahais try to give their cult a more "traditional
religion" feel.
Both liberal and non liberal bahais are intolerant of opposing views and have
censored and banned each other from things like email lists and other forums.
Both accuse each other of deviating from the bahai teachings.
Both have agendas of trying to see the bahai convert to bahaism through
missionary propaganda. They both want to see bahaism dominate the political
arena of the world.
So there is very little difference between liberal and non liberal bahais.
They are two sides of the same coin -- they both believe in the false prophet
bahaullah and all the naive idealism nonsense that the bahai faith teaches.
Mahdi Muhammad
Freethought110
'control' and 'controlling' and manipulating their respective sheep in
implimenting whatever agenda happens to be on the plate at any given time,
especially in the manner they do it. The leadership of both do things
indirectly in an ends justifying means sort of modus operandi, putting other
people to do their dirty work for them, while maintaining plausible
deniability through the whole thing themselves and painting themselves as
the innocent party all the while and above the fray when all the time they
have been the one pulling the puppet strings, as it were. This is a
trademarked "Baha'i" tactic (fundamentalist and liberal alike), hence the
appelation I have given to these so called liberals, "munafiqin/hypocrites,"
because ostensibly they should know better! They are in some ways worse than
the fundies because their sleaze, obfuscation and deception is more subtle,
hence more insidious, therefore more difficult to identify and detect by the
unsuspecting who can get very easily sucked and suckered into their rhetoric
of liberalism, vicitimization and (in)tolerance by thew big bad wolf of the
AF: that is, unless one knows them up, close and personal as I do. So be
very weary of these people, all of them, or do what I do, and have done,
keep your independence from start to finish! That is why I broke with this
group finally because they simply have a problem with independent actors and
spirits who are not following the script as they would impose upon everyone
else in the great liberal "collective," demanding they conform or else. Very
much like the Bolsheviks these so called "liberal Baha'is" are. Of course,
those being continually manipulated are too stupid to see it.
--
Freethought110
"Mr Mahdi" <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021119135210...@mb-fj.aol.com...