Origins of Obsession
Rod
Baha'i community....it is also serves as narrative therapy personal
debriefing.
It has rightfully been observed that I have an obsessive compulsive
disorder in relation to organisational procedures- due process-
protective measures- Duty of Care-mediation- conflict resolution
and the like. Some have suggested that in relation to the Baha'i
community I have made this something of a personal "crusade".
Dam straight.
I'm a former Welfare/Youth Worker currently working in Education.
Over twenty years ago I began working with adolescents suffering
schizophrenia.These young adults I (generally) found to be the sweetest
- most sensitive- intelligent-generous- God/religion curious or centred
of any group I had ever encountered.
One of the things that has emerged in relation to schizophrenia and
related disorders is the correlation between prior sexual abuse and
subsequent mental illness. Here is the point at which I would invite
you to pause and contemplate- The 'voice' that is heard by those
afflicted by mental illness is often "the voice of the abuser".
The voice that torments, the voice that whispers "uselessness" and
"hopelessness" and urges self harm or suicide is frequently reported
to be the voice of the individual who committed ongoing sexual abuse.
In the ten year period from 84-94 I saw a good number of these
treasured young souls succumb to the 'voice' and the pressures of
a society that stigmatises and rejects them-
Pete- Painter/poet, fascinated by the 'Gita', played lousy blues...
sexually abused by uncle, developed schizophrenic type
disorder, OD suicide age 18.
Adam- Highly committed young Catholic, prayerful, devoted,
extremely bright, repeatedly sexually abused by priest,
threw himself from railway bridge, age 19.
The list goes on...those who didn't make it....those who still struggle...
those I currently work with who are recently abused or at risk.
As I moved from Rehab to Youth Work to Education I came
into increasing contact with the 'preps....the paedophiles, the
perverts, the predators and abusers. Ugly slimy make your skin
crawl creepy animals? No....not at all. Most are average, normal,
polite even charming, regular citizens from all strata and backgrounds.
Some, like Australia's most notorious recent conviction (I will not
utter his name) are charismatic and have managed to present
as spiritual/men of God, running camps and youth programs for
decades.
You will not see them coming, not by instinct, vision or insight,
nor halt them by the protective power of prayer alone. They
come well camouflaged and they are not stupid...quite the
oposite...they are as cunning as shit house rats.
Working in, or in conjunction with, Child Protection tends
to open ones eyes to the reality beneath the social veneer.
....to glimpse behind the doors of individuals, families and
institutions that often present a very polished front. You get
to see the court convictions fleetingly in the news...workers
in the field get to read the case notes and see the volumes
on suspected and convicted paedophiles. The former are
horrendous....the latter are huge.
Two things I wish to impress upon the Baha'i community
with the utmost impassioned, obsessive intensity-
1/ Paedophiles do not just hunt alone. They now prey in
highly organised and well networked packs. They seek
soft targets and exchange information, they prepare and
they operate in stealth, they cover their tracks.
Shouting now-
THEY ARE MUCH BETTER PREPARED THAN YOU-
THE BAHA'I COMMUNITY- THEY HAVE THOUGHT
OUT AND PRACTICED THEIR LINE OF ATTACK-
THEY ARE MOTIVATED AND CUNNING AND
DETERMINED_ YOU ARE UNPREPARED,
UNCONCERNED, DEFENCELESS AND WALLOWING
IN DENIAL, YOURS IS A POSITION OF WILFUL
IGNORANCE= EVIL. THEY HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE
TO EAT YOU ALIVE.
2/ Implementation of procedures drives organisational cultural
change, cultural change leads to further development of
refined procedures- it is a continuos loop. It requires either
leadership, AO/management directive, or ground swell of
coal face concern....if either or both are absent your
community/organisation is at risk. If the implementation
of protective procedures is resisted or rejected, as it is
within Baha'i, your community is in danger and A DANGER
TO OTHERS.
I no longer have any hope for or interest in attempting to
facilitate the development of protective procedures and
a culture of vigilance and collective responsibility within
the Baha'i community. That is a demonstrably futile and
lost cause. Ten years of discussion, argument and debate,
online and off, has bought nothing but obfuscation, denial,
hostility and an AO "concerned at my Internet advocacy
of due process".
My sole remaining interest is to expose by argument and
example the lengths and depths Baha'is will go to in maintenance
of a wilfully ignorant culture of denial. The longer TRB Baha'i
participants misrepresent- avoid- forge- filibuster- lie- obfuscate-
ignore- cut- deny and killfile the issue the happier I am....it vastly
increases the odds of some poor passing soul seeing what they
are getting into before they enrol...or enrol their kids in anything
so lamentably open to abuse.
So you guys keep your killfile lights on, keep firing your flares of-
"we will have due process by the time we are running a country",
keep the torch of "The key to a well-functioning system is to design
it in such a way that the failures don't *ever* happen." burning magically
bright.....set great pyres to burn the evil enemies of the faith who argue
due process and justice as the Best Beloved....it all just serves to
illuminate my case.
Rod.
Karen Bacquet
> As I moved from Rehab to Youth Work to Education I came
> into increasing contact with the 'preps....the paedophiles, the
> perverts, the predators and abusers. Ugly slimy make your skin
> crawl creepy animals? No....not at all. Most are average, normal,
> polite even charming, regular citizens from all strata and backgrounds.
> Some, like Australia's most notorious recent conviction (I will not
> utter his name) are charismatic and have managed to present
> as spiritual/men of God, running camps and youth programs for
> decades.
Dear Rod,
I recently had occasion to do some research on that particularly heinous
form of sexual abuse, incest -- and the most common factor in these
families is alcoholism. The second most common factor? Religiosity.
I sometimes wonder why that is -- whether religion gives the sexual
predator a convenient cover or whether some people who get intensely
religious just have their sexuality out of whack.
My grandmother used to run a holding home for runaway girls, back in the
late 70s, before incest and sexual abuse became a hot topic in the
media. She estimated that about a third of them reported to her being
abused by someone in the family -- with stepfathers being the most
common culprit. Of all of those, only two of the perpetrators were ever
sent to jail, and they both fit the "scumbag" stereotype, and there were
multiple victims testifying.
And people misunderstand the kind of sick dynamic that goes on -- it's
amazing just how frequently the girl herself is blamed by the rest of
the family. These guys, most of the time, don't use physical force --
they manipulate, cajole, threaten, seduce. In a family setting, they
are a loved and trusted authority figure, and they play on that. "I'm
doing this because I love you so much". Sometimes, the outside world
will see a girl who is a spoiled princess, given material rewards for
her secret role as Daddy's bed-mate. In some case, the perpetrater
actually believes he is in love with her, that they have a "special"
relationship. The victim herself learns to manipulate, as a survival
skill; love is twisted into a sick game. If there's anything more
soul-destroying, I've never run across it.
And, I've seen what happens to these girls when they grow up -- they
don't know how to have a normal relationship with men.
>
> So you guys keep your killfile lights on, keep firing your flares of-
> "we will have due process by the time we are running a country",
> keep the torch of "The key to a well-functioning system is to design
> it in such a way that the failures don't *ever* happen." burning magically
> bright.....set great pyres to burn the evil enemies of the faith who argue
> due process and justice as the Best Beloved....it all just serves to
> illuminate my case.
What is needed, Rod, is some old-fashioned education. In the case I was
investigating, it was clear that the Baha'i officials involved had
absolutely no clue about the dynamics of sexual abuse, and really had no
business being involved in it at all. They didn't believe the victim,
because it was easier not to. It was easier to paint her as disturbed
and manipulative, rather than believe that her outwardly pious father
could do such a thing. According to the experts *most* accusations of
sexual abuse are true, and those that aren't tend to fall apart very
quickly. When a young lady insists over a period of years that this
happened to her, and her insistence on this story has cost her dearly in
terms of her family relationships and community ties, then I find it
pretty credible. In this case, the administration abused her all over
again, by trying to pursuade her to "forgive" and go back to her
father's home, as if it were nothing more than a little family quarrel.
It was this case, Rod, that closed the door for me. Ever since I
resigned, I was willing to leave open the possibility that I might
return someday -- but not as long as the men, who tried to persuade an
abuse victim to go back to her abuser, are in power.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Cal E. Rollins
Wonderful plea and background. My daughter is a therapist specializing
in the dysfunctions of adolescents and heads a program. I sent this on
to her, for I am sure she'll agree. I sure do, having been an
adolescent in the Baha'i community.
I think we should never give up on our communities, even if they give up
on us. It just seems to me our obsessions are necessary if knowledge
and understanding are to development into some kind of action. People
with obsessions frequently are change agents. This can be measured by
the number of Baha'is who are willing to accuse our fellows with the
perceived indictments, "You are obsessed by..." or "It seems to me you
have an obsession with...", etc. We can say that Baha'u'llah and all
the other Manifestations were "obsessed." So we're in good company.
Right?
Thanks for that tremendous plate to chow down on. Sure got my juices
flowing this wonderful San Francisco dawn. --Cal
Steve Marshall
Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand.
(Reprinted from _Forum: whiti korero o nga Baha'i_ vol. 3, no. 1, and
from _New Zealand Baha'i News_ Dec. 1993 -- Jan. 1994)
Over the past 6 to 8 months the National Spiritual Assembly has spent
considerable time consulting on the issue of violence and particularly
violence within marriage. The statement on the following pages has
resulted from those consultations, and is being released at the same
time as detailed guidelines on the same subject are being sent to all
local Spiritual Assemblies.
The National Spiritual Assembly hopes that this will be of assistance
to the New Zealand Baha'i community in dealing with this problem when
it occurs in Baha'i marriages.
Many of the problems that exist within society also exist within the
Baha'i community. Problems do not vanish from our personal lives just
because we have "signed up" as Baha'is, or have recognised Baha'u'llah
as the Manifestation of God for this age. It isn't enough to
acknowledge the Divine Physician. We must apply His remedy.
Violence, wherever it occurs, is abhorred in the Baha'i Faith. As the
overwhelming experience within society and within the Baha'i community
is men's violence to women, this is the perspective of the National
Spiritual Assembly in preparing this statement. This cannot be taken
as indicating any less serious a view being held on other
manifestations of violence.
Violence is especially debilitating and reprehensible when it takes
place within what is meant to be the safety of one's own home and the
sanctity of marriage.
The man who batters his wife, whether with words, fists or feet, may
be an ordinary man, who, in the Baha'i community, comes to Feast,
hosts a Holy Day commemoration, participates in Assembly consultation,
and on the way home will scream at and abuse his wife for not
supporting his view, for smiling at another man, or for talking
privately to one of the women. Any behaviour of his wife that he can
construe as unsupportive, provocative, or independent, may become the
"cause" of an outburst. A man who behaves like this -- usually only in
private -- will often say he "just lost control". However, the
violent, abusive man usually exercises perfect control over himself;
he doesn't behave that way to his work-mates, the police, or other
members of the community. He keeps himself well controlled until in
the privacy of his home, where his wife and children become the
victims of his abuse. Such behaviour is seldom the result of a
disturbed personality and it can be challenged, modified and
prevented.
What is the effect for the wife and children of a violent man? The
woman becomes increasingly fearful, for that is the intention of
violence -- it is intended to control behaviour by producing fear.
Such a woman manifests her fear by trying, in turn, to control the
environment, so that her husband will have no cause for outbursts. It
is a losing battle. The violent, abusive man will always find a reason
to express his violence; the house isn't tidy enough; the children
were noisy at Feast; she bought a book without his permission; she was
elected to the Local Spiritual Assembly.
In addition to trying to control the environment in the home, family
and community, the wife of a violent husband will begin to barter her
primary responsibility as first educator of their children. In a
marriage between equal and mature people, they recognise that the
purpose of their marriage is "that from you may appear he who will
remember Me amongst My servants".(1) A violent husband is one who
insists, overtly through his words, or covertly through his behaviour,
that his needs come first.
A frightened mother will find, increasingly, that she has to make
decisions about the care and well-being of her children which she
knows are not good for them, but in an effort to "keep the peace" she
will put her violent husband's demands before the rights and needs of
her children.
Often lacking transportation ("Oh, he needs the car tonight", or "My
husband says the car wouldn't make it to the conference") and money
("I can't afford to give to the Fund"), the wife of a violent husband
will become increasingly isolated from the Baha'i Community. If he
physically beats her, it will be when the bruises show or she's too
sore to move easily that she retreats from the community. If his
violence is verbal and psychological, she will increasingly feel
unworthy to participate in Baha'i activities. His verbal abuse will
erode her self confidence. She will become increasingly preoccupied
with him and his needs, and with keeping the peace. She may become
forgetful, indifferent to her appearance, fearful of saying or doing
the "wrong" thing. She may become suicidal and anxious about her
sanity.
The children from a violent home will usually appear subdued,
unwilling to take risks, unable to try new things, and lack
spontaneity. The boys will often exhibit violent, anti-social
behaviour in play as they mirror the same-gender role model. The girls
will often be passive and may be unusually helpful, as they mimic
their mother's pacifying role. As youth they may be particularly
rebellious, not only against their families but maybe against the
Baha'i Faith.
In homes where there is violence, sons often grow up to be violent
men, and daughters often grow up to be submissive, lacking in self
worth, and end up marrying violent men -- thus repeating the cycle.
And what of these violent men in our midst? A few of them know that
what they are doing is wrong. They love Baha'u'llah and desire with
all their hearts to align their lives with His teachings. These men
are ashamed of their behaviour. They will be grateful for the
recognition by the Local Spiritual Assembly of their problem. They
will readily acknowledge that they are at fault and eagerly pursue a
prescribed course of behaviour modification.
Most violent men, however, do not know that what they are doing is
wrong. They sincerely believe that everyone else is to blame for their
problems. Pointing out to these men that what they are doing is wrong,
isn't enough. They will merely find ways of disguising their violence,
rather than uprooting it from their lives. In His Will and Testament,
'Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
"Every aggressor deprives himself of God's grace."(2)
Husbands who act violently towards their wives and children are the
men 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to as tyrants.(3) Kindness to such men only
encourages their bad behaviour.
"Kindness cannot be shown the tyrant, the deceiver, or the thief,
because, far from awakening them to the error of their ways, it maketh
them to continue in their perversity as before."(4)
At this time in our spiritual evolution, we Baha'is are still far more
influenced by our culture than we are by the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah. It is the responsibility of the parents within the
family, of the Local Spiritual Assembly within the Baha'i community,
and the Baha'i communities within society, to create an environment in
which men's violence within the family is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated.
The Universal House of Justice has stated that:
"No husband should subject his wife to abuse of any kind, whether
emotional, mental or physical."(5)
The abuse by husbands of their wives is kept hidden in our Baha'i
communities because of a powerful combination of influences such as
isolation; violence which is glorified, amplified and sensationalised
by the media; "ownership" of family members; the idea that family
violence is between two equals rather than the reality of one weaker
partner; economic dependence; and lack of police, legal or community
protection. The idea of protection of the Faith has, unfortunately,
occasionally been used by well-meaning believers to avoid dealing with
violence within a marriage.
Now is the time to face the issue of violence in our own lives and in
the lives of those around us. Violence in the Baha'i community needs
to be addressed as it stunts the growth of the human resources of the
Faith. It inhibits the proper functioning of our institutions.
The National Spiritual Assembly and the Auxiliary Board members stand
ready to support Local Spiritual Assemblies and the believers at large
in their efforts to courageously address and to progressively
eliminate the violence in our midst.
Many institutions within New Zealand have recently taken up the
challenge not only to address violence, but also to develop policies
and procedures by which women can seek help. This will enable women to
take their full place within society. Thus it is timely for the
National Spiritual Assembly to respond to a need within the Baha'i
community by providing guidelines for Local Spiritual Assemblies.
Assemblies will be called upon to provide guidance to men and women
within their communities who need protection, challenge and support
for change.
Footnotes:
1. Baha'u'llah in Baha'i Prayers. National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of the United States. 1954 edition. p. 105.
2. 'Abdu'l-Baha in Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Cited in
Baha'i World Faith. National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of
the United States. 1943 edition. p. 445.
3. tyrant: "Person exercising power or authority arbitrarily or
cruelly." Concise Oxford Dictionary.
4. 'Abdu'l-Baha in Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha. 1978
edition. p. 158.
5. Universal House of Justice in Preserving Baha'i Marriages : a
compilation. December 1990. #46. Also in The Compilation of
Compilations. p. 459, # 2347.
Rod
> Rod,
>
> Wonderful plea and background. My daughter is a therapist specializing
> in the dysfunctions of adolescents and heads a program. I sent this on
> to her, for I am sure she'll agree.
Hi Cal
Thanks mate.
I would be interested to hear what your daughter thinks.
(My daughter thinks I'm- "The Troll dad from Hell" and that
I have-"No right to be dealing with other peoples kids when I
can't deal with my own" ;-)
Which brings me to "the dysfunctions of adolescents" and the
propisition that we adults are more their problem/dysfunction
than they ours. We establish replacement Rites of Passage- Drugs,
booze, gambling, sex and then wonder why they are so determined
to embrace all.
(As a complete aside that may be of interest to you in the context
of 'Who is who's problem'..... Germain Greer, author 'The female
Eunuch' recently flew back into Oz to fire a few shots in relation
to 'The Aboriginal problem'...." 'We' are their problem" she asserts
and advocates Australia become an 'Aboriginal Republic'.
Me and about six other white Australians are for the idea ;-)
> I sure do, having been an adolescent in the Baha'i community.
You would have a lot to discuss with Steve....he's an adolescent in
the Baha'i community. ;-)
> I think we should never give up on our communities, even if they give
> up on us.
I agree Cal...it was only when the community consistantly gave up
on protecting 'others' that I gave up on the community. In fact
after years of trying I (and others) could not even get them to
begin to impliment basic rights and protections for others.
I'm a working class dog Cal...I aint working in no Future Factory
devoid of basic protections for the comrades....no way/never.
> It just seems to me our obsessions are necessary if knowledge
> and understanding are to development into some kind of action. People
> with obsessions frequently are change agents.
Or taken out the back and shot.....in the most humane and loving way
;-)
> This can be measured by
> the number of Baha'is who are willing to accuse our fellows with the
> perceived indictments, "You are obsessed by..." or "It seems to me you
> have an obsession with...", etc. We can say that Baha'u'llah and all
> the other Manifestations were "obsessed."
I just can't figure out how a religious community with every
historical
precedent of- wrongful enslavement (Judaism) wrongful crucifiction
(Christianity) wrongful exile and imprisonment (Baha'i)and the command
to hold Justice as the Best Beloved of All Things can be so
indifferent
to justice provision and the protection of basic rights.
Centurian-"Sir, It's Jesus on the phone....says he is being abused".
> Thanks for that tremendous plate to chow down on. Sure got my juices
> flowing this wonderful San Francisco dawn. --Cal
Chew slowly and don't go swimming for an hour.
Hope you and Karen and all are safe from the bush fires...looks bad
from the footage we are getting.
Jerry knows a very effective old guy with a bucket, if he is
unavailable
(chasing 'warmest' Susan again;-)you know you can allways rely on the
now well established mutual protection firefigher exchange that has
been running
between the US and Oz. Teams of dedicated, well trained, well equiped
and prepared firefighters crossing oceans to assist and defend total
strangers
is a strange and alien notion within contemporary Baha'i
cosmology....but
the practice might have some merrit and may catch on. ;-)
All the best.
Rod.
Karen Bacquet
>
> Hope you and Karen and all are safe from the bush fires...looks bad
> from the footage we are getting.
No worries, Rod. Remember I'm in *northern* California, the other end
of the state from where the fires are burning. Not that we don't get
fires here, up in the foothills. But the hills here are more sparsely
populated than they are in L.A. -- the population here is concentrated
in the valley, and suffers from nothing much worse than a lot of haze
from the smoke up there, when we have forest fires.
> Jerry knows a very effective old guy with a bucket, if he is
> unavailable
> (chasing 'warmest' Susan again;-)you know you can allways rely on the
> now well established mutual protection firefigher exchange that has
> been running
> between the US and Oz. Teams of dedicated, well trained, well equiped
> and prepared firefighters crossing oceans to assist and defend total
> strangers
> is a strange and alien notion within contemporary Baha'i
> cosmology....but
> the practice might have some merrit and may catch on. ;-)
Well, I'm sure it's our loss and So. California's gain that they have
the Aussies trooping in to help them. When there's a big fire here, we
have help from all over, and the National Guard, but I've never heard of
fire fighters coming in from overseas. Right decent of you blokes. :-)
And you're right, Baha'is could learn a little something about the
notion of helping strangers without an ulterior motive -- like getting
converts.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
> All the best.
>
> Rod.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ccded73.03102...@posting.google.com...
> Hope you and Karen and all are safe from the bush fires...looks bad
> from the footage we are getting.
> Jerry knows a very effective old guy with a bucket, if he is
> unavailable
No need to worry Rod! Karen has this enormous chamber pot which can
extinguish anything ... even an error!
Rod
Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message news:<3F9BD164...@tco.net>...
> I recently had occasion to do some research on that particularly heinous
> form of sexual abuse, incest -- and the most common factor in these
> families is alcoholism. The second most common factor? Religiosity.
> I sometimes wonder why that is -- whether religion gives the sexual
> predator a convenient cover or whether some people who get intensely
> religious just have their sexuality out of whack.
Hi Karen
I would like to believe the former- that religiosity provides the
perfect
screen for abhorent behaviour but I have met enough members of the
latter
category to convince me that some forms of God intoxicated sublimated
passion
can lead people to very strange places/behaviours. (perhaps that
should be
'self intoxicated')?
>
> My grandmother used to run a holding home for runaway girls, back in the
> late 70s, before incest and sexual abuse became a hot topic in the
> media. She estimated that about a third of them reported to her being
> abused by someone in the family -- with stepfathers being the most
> common culprit.
Yes, the raw statistics are horrifying. My wife is on the Board of the
local
Sexual Assault Unit...each year at the AGM I would go along and hear
the breakdown of cases-reported-type-investigated-convictions. I have
to be honest...I stopped going after the first three. Yes, "in the
family"- close to the family- known or trusted by the family.
> Of all of those, only two of the perpetrators were ever
> sent to jail, and they both fit the "scumbag" stereotype, and there were
> multiple victims testifying.
The case I alluded to in prior post involved 27 children over three
decades...
a Catholic Priest held in high regard by his curch and broader
community.
During his previous trial a Melbourne Radio journalist broke the law
and went
to jail for publicly revealing the creeps prior convictions. Even for
those of us obsessed with justice provision there are limits to due
process...this time he is in for life.
> And people misunderstand the kind of sick dynamic that goes on -- it's
> amazing just how frequently the girl herself is blamed by the rest of
> the family. These guys, most of the time, don't use physical force --
> they manipulate, cajole, threaten, seduce. In a family setting, they
> are a loved and trusted authority figure, and they play on that.
Precisely...for these reasons and more I deplore the propisition that
a faith
community can respond yo the victim-"Do you wish to call the
police"?-"No"-
"Ok, process complete".
I know I've said it before Karen...but the actions of the perp I can
rationalize as 'mad/bad brain chemicles'-'mad/bad childhood
environment'....
but I cannot wrap my brain arround the institutional indifference or
complicity
that transpires. Even the perp family I can project some empathetic
'protect the tribe/cover for the authority figure'
understanding....but, even though
I know it is a similar dynamic, I cannot understand the institutional
bastardry
that transpires.
Snip
> In some case, the perpetrater
> actually believes he is in love with her, that they have a "special"
> relationship.
Yes...and the inverse...and it's bloody difficult
negotiating/counselling
with a twelve year old girl who thinks she is in love with a 35 yo
creep.
A mate of mine in Child Protection likens such case resolution to
'trout
fishing'...the last thing you want to do is make any noise that will
spook
the child...very hard to catch/save a fish that has done a runner from
the
pond.
> The victim herself learns to manipulate, as a survival
> skill; love is twisted into a sick game. If there's anything more
> soul-destroying, I've never run across it.
Well...you can throw in a perp who is a dealer with an addicted minor
on a short leash.......try "Do you want to call the police"? with that
one.
> And, I've seen what happens to these girls when they grow up -- they
> don't know how to have a normal relationship with men.
And the abuse becomes cyclic/generational unless it is broken.
> > So you guys keep your killfile lights on, keep firing your flares of-
> > "we will have due process by the time we are running a country",
> > keep the torch of "The key to a well-functioning system is to design
> > it in such a way that the failures don't *ever* happen." burning magically
> > bright.....set great pyres to burn the evil enemies of the faith who argue
> > due process and justice as the Best Beloved....it all just serves to
> > illuminate my case.
>
> What is needed, Rod, is some old-fashioned education.
I fear that few things motivate the learning process like a multi
million
dollar Class Action for neglect of Duty of Care.
> In the case I was
> investigating, it was clear that the Baha'i officials involved had
> absolutely no clue about the dynamics of sexual abuse, and really had no
> business being involved in it at all. They didn't believe the victim,
> because it was easier not to. It was easier to paint her as disturbed
> and manipulative, rather than believe that her outwardly pious father
> could do such a thing. According to the experts *most* accusations of
> sexual abuse are true, and those that aren't tend to fall apart very
> quickly. When a young lady insists over a period of years that this
> happened to her, and her insistence on this story has cost her dearly in
> terms of her family relationships and community ties, then I find it
> pretty credible. In this case, the administration abused her all over
> again, by trying to pursuade her to "forgive" and go back to her
> father's home, as if it were nothing more than a little family quarrel.
I know it is not a pleasant subject matter Karen....but it is a bloody
relief to be responding to a couple of posts in which I don't feel
obliged
to fight to be understood nor struggling to understand.
There is so much in what you say above to respond to...please forgive
if
I come back for a second bite later.
It is this misplaced advocasy of "forgiveness" that I see over and
over again.
Or "Forgive, forget, move on in loving unity".....excuse
me...NO...fuck that...
not in cases of ongoing abuse. It is psuedo spiritual abuse
compounding inapropriate bullshit and I hate it. It's not just the
Baha'i community either,
it permeates the whole New Age movement(which in turn permeates
Baha'i)...it manifests in abuse victims being asked/encouraged to
forgive the abuser...and when they can't they feel guilty- "What's
wrong with me I cannot forgive"?-on top of "What have I done to bring
this on"?
> It was this case, Rod, that closed the door for me.
Swaps...There was a case of child sexual abuse in a nearby community.
The Baha'i perp was caught, convicted and commited suicide in jail.
Two years after the event a female member of our community attends a
Unity
Feast in that community and decides, through the goodness of her
heart, to
sing a prayer of forgiveness for the departed soul of the perp...in
front of the mother, father, victim. Unanounced, no forwarning, way we
go with the
spiritual show. The mother and child left at first mention of the pers
name...
the father stood transfixed with rage...no one steped forward to
object.
The prayer singer subsequently lost her voting rights along with her
husband...
their subsequent letter of resignation from the faith can best be
condensed as-
"We would have found it possible to understand and comply with the
NSA's sanction had someone actualy told us what we have done wrong".
So "subtle" loving and all embracing was the counselling that no one
had ever specified
the precise nature of the offenses leading to sanction. Both left the
faith
and with them went their three adolescent children...small rural
Baha'i community looses five...exit by troops.
> Ever since I resigned, I was willing to leave open the possibility that I
> might
> return someday -- but not as long as the men, who tried to persuade an
> abuse victim to go back to her abuser, are in power.
An entirely honourable exile.
Did you ever get (or try to take) the oportunity to openly explain
your
departure to the community?
Thanks for the chat Karen....I feel better now.
How much do I owe you Doc?
As I said to Cal...hope you are well out of the fire zone.
Thinking of you all.
Rod
Rod
> "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ccded73.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > Hope you and Karen and all are safe from the bush fires...looks bad
> > from the footage we are getting.
> > Jerry knows a very effective old guy with a bucket, if he is
> > unavailable
>
> No need to worry Rod!
Wot, me worry?
> Karen has this enormous chamber pot
I am certain you exaggerate Dermod...no doubt
it is a petite little pot befitting Karens
petite little...now, I was going to say
'personality'....but that still leaves me
in deep shite dont it?
Oh well, at least I am better of than you who
has inferred Karen has a big fat ass.
I think I'll go now.....
> which can extinguish anything ... even an error!
Please see above....pour away.
Rod
Karen Bacquet
>
>
>>And people misunderstand the kind of sick dynamic that goes on -- it's
>>amazing just how frequently the girl herself is blamed by the rest of
>>the family. These guys, most of the time, don't use physical force --
>>they manipulate, cajole, threaten, seduce. In a family setting, they
>>are a loved and trusted authority figure, and they play on that.
>
>
> Precisely...for these reasons and more I deplore the propisition that
> a faith
> community can respond yo the victim-"Do you wish to call the
> police"?-"No"-
> "Ok, process complete".
Dear Rod,
It's the position that battered wives used to be in -- where someone
could be prosecuted only if the wife "pressed charges", and since she
often changed her mind later, the police were reluctant to intervene.
People don't realize the key element of abuse is not what happens
physically, but what happens emotionally, as the victim is threatened or
manipulated into helping the "perp" cover it up.
What is even worse than simply leaving it at "Do you wish to call the
police?", but when a faith community actively discourages that, which is
a story I've heard from some disillusioned Baha'is. This is not only a
Baha'i thing, of course -- my husband, in his capacity as probation
officer, has dealt with religious groups that try to handle things
"inside" the group. Which means either that absolutely nothing happens
at all, or the abuser makes a big show of confession and repentence,
then goes and does the same thing he was always doing.
> I know I've said it before Karen...but the actions of the perp I can
> rationalize as 'mad/bad brain chemicles'-'mad/bad childhood
> environment'....
> but I cannot wrap my brain arround the institutional indifference or
> complicity
> that transpires. Even the perp family I can project some empathetic
> 'protect the tribe/cover for the authority figure'
> understanding....but, even though
> I know it is a similar dynamic, I cannot understand the institutional
> bastardry
> that transpires.
The ignorance about this stuff is astounding. I knew one girl's
mother-in-law who was convinced by her family, that she actually
initiated and consented to the sexual relationship -- at age 10, no
less. Of course, she'd grown up a total mess, and mom-in-law hated her
guts and was willing to believe anything bad about her. But, you know,
get a clue -- ten-year-old girls do not consent to have sex with their
fathers. This girl once wrote down the story of the first time it
happened to her, and you didn't know whether to cry or throw up.
The institutional indifference is, I think, a matter of convenience. It
is quite simply easier to disbelieve the accusation of abuse than to
believe it. There might be a public scandal. And religious groups,
like the Baha'i institutions are simply not equipped to investigate such
things -- and unfortunately, the story I referred to took place in a
country where the civil system is none too equipped, either. So, what
do they do, if there's no criminal charges? Yank his voting rights,
when they can't tell what's true? It's easier for them to just assume
the whole thing is false.
The thing that upset me was dismissing it to the extent that they
wanted her to *return* to her abuser. Let me tell you, Rod, if a young
girl comes to you and says that her father sexuallly abused her, are you
going to tell her to shut up and go home, even if you had no way of
proving if the accusation was true or not? Would any decent human being
do that? They were telling her the UHJ itself wanted her to return --
that body believed to be "the source of all good, and freed from all
error". Can you imagine the sense of betrayal?
>
> Snip
>
>>In some case, the perpetrater
>>actually believes he is in love with her, that they have a "special"
>>relationship.
>
>
> Yes...and the inverse...and it's bloody difficult
> negotiating/counselling
> with a twelve year old girl who thinks she is in love with a 35 yo
> creep.
Yeah, my Jim has dealt with cases like that. He had a case of a fourteen
year old that was living with a guy in his 30s, and her parents knew
about it, and didn't care! Some of these girls need love and attention
so bad that they can't even see how they're being used.
>
>>The victim herself learns to manipulate, as a survival
>>skill; love is twisted into a sick game. If there's anything more
>>soul-destroying, I've never run across it.
>
>
> Well...you can throw in a perp who is a dealer with an addicted minor
> on a short leash.......try "Do you want to call the police"? with that
> one.
Oh, yeah -- I'm sure the victim in that case would run the opposite
direction from the police. That's one of the threats -- the child is
told she'll be in trouble, that she'll be put in juvenile hall or a
foster home, where she'll never see any of her family again. Or Dad
will lose his job, or go to jail, and the family will be on the streets
and it will all be her fault. Or the classic "Nobody will ever believe
you", which some people seem determined to make true.
>>
>>What is needed, Rod, is some old-fashioned education.
>
>
> I fear that few things motivate the learning process like a multi
> million
> dollar Class Action for neglect of Duty of Care.
It takes time, and multiple victims, for that kind of thing to come
about. For me, investigating as an individual reporter, *I'm* the one
vulnerable to a lawsuit, if I don't have every angle sewn up tight. And
in that case, I couldn't do it. It's a rare abuse case where you could;
that's what makes it so hard.
>
> I know it is not a pleasant subject matter Karen....but it is a bloody
> relief to be responding to a couple of posts in which I don't feel
> obliged
> to fight to be understood nor struggling to understand.
Actually, it's a relief to me, Rod, that I can talk about this case,
however obliquely. I spent over five months on it, and in the end, had
to throw in the towel.
> There is so much in what you say above to respond to...please forgive
> if
> I come back for a second bite later.
> It is this misplaced advocasy of "forgiveness" that I see over and
> over again.
> Or "Forgive, forget, move on in loving unity".....excuse
> me...NO...fuck that...
> not in cases of ongoing abuse. It is psuedo spiritual abuse
> compounding inapropriate bullshit and I hate it. It's not just the
> Baha'i community either,
> it permeates the whole New Age movement(which in turn permeates
> Baha'i)...it manifests in abuse victims being asked/encouraged to
> forgive the abuser...and when they can't they feel guilty- "What's
> wrong with me I cannot forgive"?-on top of "What have I done to bring
> this on"?
You get it in Christian groups, too -- because forgiveness is such a big
deal in the gospels, seventy times seven, and all that. Then there is
the belief that if someone confesses a sin, and repents, then it's all
over with. But, you can't "forgive" abuse without messing up the victim
even further.
>
>
>
>>It was this case, Rod, that closed the door for me.
>
>
> Swaps...There was a case of child sexual abuse in a nearby community.
> The Baha'i perp was caught, convicted and commited suicide in jail.
> Two years after the event a female member of our community attends a
> Unity
> Feast in that community and decides, through the goodness of her
> heart, to
> sing a prayer of forgiveness for the departed soul of the perp...in
> front of the mother, father, victim. Unanounced, no forwarning, way we
> go with the
> spiritual show. The mother and child left at first mention of the pers
> name...
> the father stood transfixed with rage...no one steped forward to
> object.
Oh, boy. And I'll bet this woman just thought she was doing a great and
spiritual thing, too. If she was so concerned about the soul of the
perpetrater, surely she could have said a little prayer in private,
rather than in front of the victim and family.
>
> The prayer singer subsequently lost her voting rights along with her
> husband...
> their subsequent letter of resignation from the faith can best be
> condensed as-
> "We would have found it possible to understand and comply with the
> NSA's sanction had someone actualy told us what we have done wrong".
O.K., so she made this big mistake, and they stripped her of voting
rights -- and didn't explain why?
> So "subtle" loving and all embracing was the counselling that no one
> had ever specified
> the precise nature of the offenses leading to sanction.
Gee, silly me, I thought you had to break a Baha'i law to get
sanctioned. Or at least that's the schtick I believed when I was naive
and enrolled. Being stupid isn't a breach of Baha'i law, or we'd have a
whole different lot of administrators, that's for sure!
>
>>Ever since I resigned, I was willing to leave open the possibility that I
>
> > might
>
>>return someday -- but not as long as the men, who tried to persuade an
>>abuse victim to go back to her abuser, are in power.
>
>
> An entirely honourable exile.
> Did you ever get (or try to take) the oportunity to openly explain
> your
> departure to the community?
No, only to my friends. I did talk about this abuse case to one of
them, and she didn't respond, really -- it's like she didn't know what
to say about it. I don't think she believed me.
>
> Thanks for the chat Karen....I feel better now.
> How much do I owe you Doc?
Like Lucy in the Peanuts comic strip, I only charge a nickel. :-)
>
> As I said to Cal...hope you are well out of the fire zone.
We're just fine, Rod.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Paul Hammond
> This is less of a thread than an open letter to the TRB and broader
> Baha'i community....it is also serves as narrative therapy personal
> debriefing.
>
Thank you for sharing.
I cannot claim the same experience with abuse survivors
as you, but what experience I have mirrors yours.
>
> One of the things that has emerged in relation to schizophrenia and
> related disorders is the correlation between prior sexual abuse and
> subsequent mental illness. Here is the point at which I would invite
> you to pause and contemplate- The 'voice' that is heard by those
> afflicted by mental illness is often "the voice of the abuser".
> The voice that torments, the voice that whispers "uselessness" and
> "hopelessness" and urges self harm or suicide is frequently reported
> to be the voice of the individual who committed ongoing sexual abuse.
>
> In the ten year period from 84-94 I saw a good number of these
> treasured young souls succumb to the 'voice' and the pressures of
> a society that stigmatises and rejects them-
> Pete- Painter/poet, fascinated by the 'Gita', played lousy blues...
> sexually abused by uncle, developed schizophrenic type
> disorder, OD suicide age 18.
> Adam- Highly committed young Catholic, prayerful, devoted,
> extremely bright, repeatedly sexually abused by priest,
> threw himself from railway bridge, age 19.
>
> The list goes on...those who didn't make it....those who still struggle...
> those I currently work with who are recently abused or at risk.
>
My friend is a young woman who, despite having written and
put on a play at the age of 17, thinks of herself as
a worthless failure.
Despite having a great enthusiasm and knowledge for books
and literature - the subject of her studies at University,
she spends her evenings making her wrists bleed.
She made a serious attempt to kill herself at the age of
14.
When I first knew her, she had no idea why she was so
depressed all the time. Then her repressed memories
started to return, and she went into therapy.
It appears, she was abused by someone who worked at
her primary school, and also, a little later on, by
a family member with a history of abuse who visited
her family for Christmas one year.
The mind is a wonderful and fascinating thing, and
very resiliant, but it seems the trauma of this
kind of abuse is too much for most human minds.
Paul
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> investigating, it was clear that the Baha'i officials involved had
> absolutely no clue about the dynamics of sexual abuse, and really had no
> business being involved in it at all.
If this is the same case that I'm thinking of they had every reason to get
involved. The prime objective of the AO in this and anything else is to
limit damage to the AO. Victims therefore become unimportant unless the
victim is the AO or it is likely to become victimised in any way.
> They didn't believe the victim,
> because it was easier not to. It was easier to paint her as disturbed
> and manipulative, rather than believe that her outwardly pious father
> could do such a thing.
Like I said, it is essential that the AO not become the victim of
delusionally obsessed persons who tell the truth in a way that is likely to
cast the AO in a bad light.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
>
> I am certain you exaggerate Dermod...no doubt
> it is a petite little pot befitting Karens
> petite little...now, I was going to say
> 'personality'....but that still leaves me
> in deep shite dont it?
>
> Oh well, at least I am better of than you who
> has inferred Karen has a big fat ass.
I inferred no such thing! 'Twas you who brought Karen's ass and the size
thereof into the conversation. I never talk about them mainly because just
about everybody has got a bigger ass than me. Yup! All the women in my life
continually judge my ass as being deficient or even non-existent. If only
those extra inches on the waistline could flow south to fill my hollow
cheeks - life could be so good.
> I think I'll go now.....
Me too ... before I say anything that will get me into real trouble.
Rod
>
> "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ccded73.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > > Karen has this enormous chamber pot
> >
> > I am certain you exaggerate Dermod...no doubt
> > it is a petite little pot befitting Karens
> > petite little...now, I was going to say
> > 'personality'....but that still leaves me
> > in deep shite dont it?
> >
> > Oh well, at least I am better of than you who
> > has inferred Karen has a big fat ass.
>
> I inferred no such thing!
Fibber!
> 'Twas you who brought Karen's ass and the size
> thereof into the conversation.
Clear inference from your prior post and application of Jerrys 'Reductio
adnausium
absurdium'
> I never talk about them mainly because just about everybody has got a
bigger ass than me.
> Yup! All the women in my life
> continually judge my ass as being deficient or even non-existent.
Oh yea, that's right, go on....play the Mick Jagger hips card!
"My buns is so tight they be non-existent"......Ha!
"*All* the women" in your life?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Susan Maneck
>police?", but when a faith community actively discourages that, which is
>a story I've heard from some disillusioned Baha'is.
Dear Karen,
I think that has been a problem in the past. I think that is because they were
confused by Shoghi Effendi's guidance that Baha'is should avoid taking one
another to court and let the Assemblies handle their disputes. He had in mind
civil, not criminal matters. Now that Assemblies are all being given seminar
training in domestic violence, that shouldn't happen anymore.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Rod
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031029093748...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >What is even worse than simply leaving it at "Do you wish to call the
> >police?", but when a faith community actively discourages that, which is
> >a story I've heard from some disillusioned Baha'is.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> I think that has been a problem in the past.
In this case "the past" is no more than a few days ago when Susan rode
to beleagered Jerry['s aid and in response to his incessant insistance that
"Do you wish to call the police?" was 'Step 1' she posted "exactly".
Then fled.
> I think that is because they were confused by Shoghi Effendi's guidance
that
> Baha'is should avoid taking one
> another to court and let the Assemblies handle their disputes.
Does not explain or excuse the deplorable disinterest and misinformed
attitude
to the issues (domestic violence/sexual abuse) evident in the Baha'i
community
and clearly demonstrated by Baha'i apologists here on TRB.
>He had in mind civil, not criminal matters.
I think Steve just covered the sourse of this problem.
> Now that Assemblies are all being given seminar
> training in domestic violence,
'How to' instruction?
Is that what the Rahui Institute is for?
> that shouldn't happen anymore.
If there was so much as a grain of truth in this speculation-
Why would it take two weeks for 'any' TRB Baha'i participant
to come up with 'any' authoritative material/processes?
Why would the responses to a simple abuse scenario range
from the mind numbing stupid to the insanely dangerous....
and why would you lend such dangerous notions your support.?
Susan, you will discuss with endless enthusiasm obscure historical
or theological issues but when it comes down to the coal face issues
and the nitty gritty of how life often actually is for members of the Baha'i
community you-
Avoid issues like plague-
Play one line sniper from the side lines (never hitting target)-
Contribute glib absurdities and flee all explanation/justification-
Obfuscate and distract from the core issues as a device of avoidance-
Killfile the opponent when you are caught/cornered in obviously absurd
position.
There can/will be no safe/effective dealing with domestic violence and
related issues until the basic principles of 'Fair Due Process' are
implemented.
Your timeline for such implementation?-
"By the time we [Baha'is] are running a country we will have it [due
process]"
Can't wait.
Rod.
Randy Burns
Susan Maneck
> to beleagered Jerry['s aid and in response to his incessant insistance that
> "Do you wish to call the police?" was 'Step 1' she posted "exactly".
> Then fled.
Misrepresentation. What I was saying yes to is the fact that criminal matters
needed to be reported to the police, that it isn't a matter for Assemblies
themselves to determine who is guilty or innocent.
Paul Hammond
> > In this case "the past" is no more than a few days ago when Susan rode
> > to beleagered Jerry['s aid and in response to his incessant insistance that
> > "Do you wish to call the police?" was 'Step 1' she posted "exactly".
> > Then fled.
>
> Misrepresentation. What I was saying yes to is the fact that criminal matters
> needed to be reported to the police, that it isn't a matter for Assemblies
> themselves to determine who is guilty or innocent.
>
Well, I'd agree with that, indeed.
This is what Karen has been saying, also.
In Rod's new scenario, where instead of just an allegation
of "unwanted sexual advantage", we have a clear case of
sexual abuse by a man who also has unsupervised charge of
children, I will certianly be wanting to bring police
and/or social services in.
The question is, though, what information gathering
processes are going to be followed to allow A the
space and safety to tell us what she knows, leading
to the suspension and loss of voting rights of
B, and the attention of police/social services
to his crimes.
These situations have to be handled with sensitivity,
Jerry clearly has none.
Apparently, there *are* some Baha'i guidelines on
how to handle situations of domestic abuse - we'd
need these kind of guidelines to increase the chances
of such situations being handled properly in cases
where people like Jerry are chair of the LSA,
rather than people who can work out for themselves
how to handle a tricky situation like this.
Paul
Rod
I'm begging you!
It makes me look such a dag having a discussion with someone
who refuses to read or respond to my posts killfiled posts....
on a regular basis
;-)
("Definitely. He keeps begging people to post for them so he can get past my
filter. That's pretty desperate". SM)
Desperate beg No1 complete.
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031029224428...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> > In this case "the past" is no more than a few days ago when Susan rode
> > to beleagered Jerry['s aid and in response to his incessant insistance
that
> > "Do you wish to call the police?" was 'Step 1' she posted "exactly".
> > Then fled.
>
> Misrepresentation.
Bollocks.
Here is the post in question-
Jerry writes-
>If someone came up to you and said they had been robbed or raped, you
>wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
>crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police. Why is it
>any different when the allegation involves sexual harassment?
Susan responds-
"Exactly. Baha'is institutions would be potentially liable if they advised
people to do anything else".
90 posts into a scenario thread dealing with an allegation of "unwarranted
sexual advances", with not a single question asked in regard the nature,
origin, severity or context of the alleged incident, and with Jerry
repeatedly
asserting that such would be no different to "rape, kidnap, assault", you
provide support for and confirmation of his absurd and dangerous position-
"you wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
crime" JJ
"exactly " SM
Well any sane individual/organisation WOULD "worry about trying to
ascertain anything".....anything they could to assist and protect the
alleged
victim and the alleged perp. For all the myriad reasons already articulated
within the scenario that you have ignored and fled from.
>What I was saying yes to is the fact that criminal matters
> needed to be reported to the police,
No, that's not what you said. Jerry made a summary of circumstance
as he perceived it. You began your response with "exactly", confirmation,
complete agreement. Then you went on to elaborate on the LSA's
obligation supporting and confirming Jerry's bogus position at every turn.
Here you go again-
> that it isn't a matter for Assemblies
> themselves to determine who is guilty or innocent.
This was never in question, this was never an issue, this is another
"furphy" another "red herring" another "device of distraction"...
There, I have used horrid invective again....time for you to show
true consultation with- "obnoxious, paranoid, jackass, cyberstalker"
and the newly installed Mark9 killfile.
(But not until you have cut and ignored the evidence and the core
issue and responded with an evasive blipvert ;-)
Rod.
Rod
I spent an hour responding to your post and then lost the lot in a power
blackout before I could send. It was a dam good, if somewhat lengthy,
reply too! ;-)
Will try again on the weekend.
Rod.
(Who does apologise for letting Dermod lead him astray ;-)
Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F9E3ABF...@tco.net...
Jerry Joplin
> Misrepresentation. What I was saying yes to is the fact that criminal matters
> needed to be reported to the police, that it isn't a matter for Assemblies
> themselves to determine who is guilty or innocent.
But Susan.... Apparently Rod and Paul *FIRST* want the assemblies to
determine if they are rational, male or female, married, not engaging in
frivolous accusations, a resident of the state of Delaware, covered
under any anti-trust letigation, adept at fooling lie detectors, covered
under any class action suits, a subsidiary member or relative of a
subsidiary member, within 30 days of quarterly earnings announcements,
have imbibed any alcohol or illegal drugs within the last 6 months (hair
test necessary), a credit score of 25 or above, never adjudicated
mentally deficient, ever indicted for a felony, ever found guilty of a
felony, a past lottery winner (one per customer), seratonin levels
within 3% of normal range, dopamine levels within 12% of normal range,
blood pressure normal, accumulated excessive traffic violations,
accumulated excessive parking violations, ever bet on horses, ever bet
on Pete Rose or the Reds, not currently under excessive stress levels,
not currently under the influence of prescribed medications in more than
the prescribed amount from a licensed physiciam (blood test necessary),
have ever been the subject of an adjudicated lobotomy, the subject of
the following disclaimer: Action figures sold separately. Add toner.
All models over 18 years of age. All rights reserved. Allow four to six
weeks for delivery. An equal opportunity employer. Any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely
coincidental. Apply only to affected area. Approved for veterans. As
seen on TV. At participating locations only. Avoid contact with mucous
membranes. Avoid contact with skin. Avoid extreme temperatures and store
in a cool dry place. Batteries not included. Be sure each item is
properly endorsed. Beware of dog. Booths for two or more. Breaking seal
constitutes acceptance of agreement. Call toll free number before
digging. Caveat emptor. Check here if tax deductible. Close cover before
striking Colors may fade. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco
ingredients. Contents may settle during shipment. Contestants have been
briefed on some questions before the show. Copyright © 1995 Joker's
Wild. Disclaimer does not cover hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami,
volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, and other Acts of God, misuse,
neglect, unauthorized repair, damage from improper installation, broken
antenna or marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts, customer adjustments that are not covered in the joke
list, and incidents owing to airplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle
accidents, leaky roof, broken glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest
fire, flying projectiles, or dropping the item. Do not bend, fold,
mutilate, or spindle. Do not place near flammable or magnetic source. Do
not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Do not
stamp. Use other side for additional listings. Do not use while
operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Do not write below this
line. Documents are provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or
implied. Don't quote me on anything. Don't quote me on that. Driver does
not carry cash. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. Employees
and their families are not eligible. Falling rock. First pull up, then
pull down. Flames redirected to /dev/null. For a limited time only. For
external use only. For off-road use only. For office use only. For
recreational use only. Do not disturb. Freshest if eaten before date on
carton. Hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat. If a rash, redness,
irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition
persists, consult your physician. If defects are discovered, do not
attempt to fix them yourself, but return to an authorized service
center. If ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist,
consult a doctor. Keep away from open flames and avoid inhaling fumes.
Keep away from sunlight, pets, and small children. Keep cool; process
promptly. Limit one-per-family please. Limited time offer, call now to
ensure prompt delivery. List at least two alternate dates. List each
check separately by bank number. List was current at time of printing.
Lost ticket pays maximum rate. May be too intense for some viewers. Must
be 18 to enter. No Canadian coins. No alcohol, dogs or horses. No
anchovies unless otherwise specified. No animals were harmed in the
production of these documents. No money down. No other warranty
expressed or implied. No passes accepted for this engagement. No postage
necessary if mailed in the United States. No preservatives added. No
purchase necessary. No salt, MSG, artificial color or flavor added. No
shoes, no shirt, no service, no kidding. No solicitors. No substitutions
allowed. No transfers issued until the bus comes to a complete stop. No
user-serviceable parts inside. Not affiliated with the American Red
Cross. Not liable for damages due to use or misuse. Not recommended for
children. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or
consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to
perform. Not the Beatles. Objects in mirror may be closer than they
appear. One size fits all. Many suitcases look alike. Other copyright
laws for specific entries apply wherever noted. Other restrictions may
apply. Package sold by weight, not volume. Parental advisory - explicit
lyrics. Penalty for private use. Place stamp here. Please remain seated
until the ride has come to a complete stop. Possible penalties for early
withdrawal. Post office will not deliver without postage. Postage will
be paid by addressee. Prerecorded for this time zone. Price does not
include taxes. Processed at location stamped in code at top of carton.
Quantities are limited while supplies last. Read at your own risk.
Record additional transactions on back of previous stub. Replace with
same type. Reproduction strictly prohibited. Restaurant package, not for
resale. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file, unable to
forward. Ribbed for your pleasure. Safety goggles may be required during
use. Sanitized for your protection. Sealed for your protection, do not
use if the safety seal is broken. See label for sequence. Shading within
a garment may occur. Sign here without admitting guilt. Simulated
picture. Slightly enlarged to show detail. Slightly higher west of the
Rockies. Slippery when wet. Smoking these may be hazardous to your
health. Some assembly required. Some equipment shown is optional. Some
of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification
purposes only. Subject to FCC approval. Subject to change without
notice. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Text may contain
material some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is
advised. Text used in these documents is made from 100% recycled
electrons and magnetic particles. The best safeguard, second only to
abstinence, is the use of a good laugh. These documents do not reflect
the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my
rabbit. This disclaimer was stolen from Phillip Winn (pw...@winn.com),
who can't remember from whom he stole it. This is not an offer to sell
securities. This offer is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise
restricted. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Times
approximate. Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. Use only as
directed. Use only in a well-ventilated are. User assumes full
liabilities. Void where prohibited. We have sent the forms which seem
right for you. You must be present to win. You need not be present to
win. Your canceled check is your receipt. Your mileage may vary.
This supersedes all previous notices.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>processes are going to be followed to allow A the
>space and safety to tell us what she knows
>to the suspension and loss of voting rights of
>B, and the attention of police/social services
>to his crimes.
Dear Paul,
I'm talking a bit off the top of my head here because I haven't take the new
module on domestic violence myself.
But I would think that notifying the authorities and losing voting rights are
really two different issues. If criminal action is reported to an Assembly they
have the responsibility to report the matter to the proper authorities whether
or not they have completed their own investigation. Indeed, the Assembly might
be entering into a grey legal area were they to continue their own
investigation while a police investigation is underway. If however, the courts
determine that a crime has indeed been committed that is usually sufficient
warrant to remove someone's voting rights. However, if not enough evidence can
be adduced to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt necessary for a criminal
conviction, the Assembly is still free to conduct its own investigation
afterwards under its own terms.
>Apparently, there *are* some Baha'i guidelines on
>how to handle situations of domestic abuse - we'd
>need these kind of guidelines to increase the chances
>of such situations being handled properly in cases
>where people like Jerry are chair of the LSA,
Women are usually better with this stuff. ;-}
Jerry is a new Baha'i and these materials are new as well. If I've not yet seen
them you can bet Jerry hasn't either. But they are being disseminated fairly
quickly. Our Assembly has a deepening on it this week.
warmest, Susan
Jerry Joplin
> "you wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
> crime" JJ
>
> "exactly " SM
>
> Well any sane individual/organisation WOULD "worry about trying to
> ascertain anything".....anything they could to assist and protect the
> alleged
> victim and the alleged perp. For all the myriad reasons already articulated
> within the scenario that you have ignored and fled from.
Actually the first ascertainment should be to ask if they want to call
the police. Beyond that, we probably agree, but I'm not sure if you can
handle agreeing with me about anything.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>But Susan.... Apparently Rod and Paul *FIRST* want the assemblies to
>determine if they are rational, male or female, married, not engaging in
>frivolous accusations
Dear Jerry,
I don't know about Paul, but that did appear to be what Rod was suggesting
which is why I sided with you on this one. Apparently Rod didn't get what I was
siding with you about.
Don't club Paul and Rod together. Paul can be a pretty decent human being if
you don't rub him the wrong way. As for Rod, it is impossible *not* to rub him
the wrong way, which is why I don't waste too much time with him.
Susan Maneck
>Actually the first ascertainment should be to ask if they want to call
>the police.
Dear Jerry,
If we are talking about something criminal then it may be best not to ask and
contact the authorities anyhow. One protects the victim first (whether they
agree or not), determing guilt comes second.
Randy Burns
on the subject of improving Baha'i procedures. I think your years of
complaining have finally borne fruit in the new US sponsored guidelines on
domestic abuse.
Way to go kid!
Cheers, Randy
--
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031030104429...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Randy Burns
Paul Hammond
> >The question is, though, what information gathering
> >processes are going to be followed to allow A the
> >space and safety to tell us what she knows
> > leading
> >to the suspension and loss of voting rights of
> >B, and the attention of police/social services
> >to his crimes.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I'm talking a bit off the top of my head here because I haven't take the new
> module on domestic violence myself.
>
As are we all. Don't sweat it.
I don't think these issues are easy to handle - that's why attempting
to sweep it under the carpet has so much appeal.
> But I would think that notifying the authorities and losing voting rights are
> really two different issues.
Yeah - I'm kind of thinking like if something goes criminal goes
on in sports then, you'll get the sportsperson prosecuted
for the crime, and also, usually, fined by his club for
bringing the game/club into disrepute.
It's like, the one thing is the working out of the civil
violation, and the other is the application of the clubs
disciplinary rules.
I'm not connecting the two, but I do think that in the
scenario as Rod now has it, someone like B ought to have
their voting rights suspended as a matter of course, as
well as the Baha'is notifying the police.
If criminal action is reported to an Assembly they
> have the responsibility to report the matter to the proper authorities whether
> or not they have completed their own investigation. Indeed, the Assembly might
> be entering into a grey legal area were they to continue their own
> investigation while a police investigation is underway. If however, the courts
> determine that a crime has indeed been committed that is usually sufficient
> warrant to remove someone's voting rights. However, if not enough evidence can
> be adduced to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt necessary for a criminal
> conviction, the Assembly is still free to conduct its own investigation
> afterwards under its own terms.
>
We appear to be thinking along similar lines here.
> >Apparently, there *are* some Baha'i guidelines on
> >how to handle situations of domestic abuse - we'd
> >need these kind of guidelines to increase the chances
> >of such situations being handled properly in cases
> >where people like Jerry are chair of the LSA,
>
> Women are usually better with this stuff. ;-}
>
Well, naturally - maybe that's a point for my "Female
leaders" thread?
> Jerry is a new Baha'i and these materials are new as well. If I've not yet seen
> them you can bet Jerry hasn't either. But they are being disseminated fairly
> quickly. Our Assembly has a deepening on it this week.
>
It sounds like a positive move to have guidance on these
sort of things.
Clearly, having guidance doesn't solve the problems, or
make it easy to deal with being put into this kind of
difficult situation - but it sure is better than having
no guidance!
Paul
Karen Bacquet
Rod wrote:
> Dear Karen
>
> I spent an hour responding to your post and then lost the lot in a power
> blackout before I could send. It was a dam good, if somewhat lengthy,
> reply too! ;-)
Dear Rod,
I'm sure it was wonderful, and I'm sorry I didn't get to see it.
However, I've got some heavy-duty stuff that has hit just lately in
real life, and I don't have the emotional energy for my normal wit and
wisdom online. I'm cutting back my Internet activity to only those
arenas where I have a commitment to moderate, until such time when I'm
ready to cope again. I might be lurking; might not -- depending on how
I feel. So, I guess what I'm saying is, even if you recover the
thoughts in your "damn good" post, it might be a while before I respond.
Right now, I just ain't got it. Keep fighting the good fight while
I'm gone, everybody.
Love, Karen
Seegar
wrote:
> we'd
>need these kind of guidelines to increase the chances
>of such situations being handled properly in cases
>where people like Jerry are chair of the LSA,
>
>Paul
exactly.
Susan Maneck
> >wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
> >crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police. Why is it
> >any different when the allegation involves sexual harassment?
> Susan responds-
> "Exactly. Baha'is institutions would be potentially liable if they advised
> people to do anything else"
Yes. My point was that the first thing that needs to be ascertained was is this
a matter for the police. I was saying Assemblies ought not to waste time
determining guilt or innocence if someone's safety was at issue.
>this was never an issue, this is another
> "furphy" another "red herring" another "device of distraction"...
And that is why no one talks to you. You insist on insisting they don't mean
what they say the mean. There is no sense in trying to communicate with someone
who does that.
I will not be responding to anything Randy reposts for you at this point.
Susan Maneck
>on the subject of improving Baha'i procedures. I think your years of
>complaining have finally borne fruit in the new US sponsored guidelines on
>domestic abuse.
Why would our NSA care what some Baha'i in Australia thinks? Obviously those
guidelines were developed because of certain issues within our own community,
not because Rod had a bad time with his LSA in the Outback.
Susan Maneck
>Clearly, having guidance doesn't solve the problems, or
>make it easy to deal with being put into this kind of
>difficult situation - but it sure is better than having
>no guidance!
Sure. But in the Baha'i community you are still going to be dealing with a
bunch of amateurs. ;-}
Rod
> > >If someone came up to you and said they had been robbed or raped, you
> > >wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
> > >crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police. Why is
it
> > >any different when the allegation involves sexual harassment?
>
> > Susan responds-
> > "Exactly. Baha'is institutions would be potentially liable if they
advised
> > people to do anything else"
>
> Yes. My point was that the first thing that needs to be ascertained was is
this
> a matter for the police.
That is NOT what you said. You responded to Jerry's stated position with
the opening remark "Exactly"....full agreement....complete accord.
Here is his consistently stated position again-"you wouldn't worry about
trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police.".
You may wish to plead that because of your Claytons Killfile you had missed
my preceding 30+ posts debunking this ridiculous stance...but even Jerry's
cut and paste hatchet jobs left sufficient remnant of the thread context to
ascertain
what was going down.
You rode in like the 7th to provide full support- "exactly"- to one of the
most
ridiculous arguments ever put on TRB...now you backflip and conduct personal
post historical revisionism-
Susan(from separate backflip post)-
"If we are talking about something criminal then it may be best not to ask
and
contact the authorities anyhow".
And how in the name of sweet baby Jesus are you EVER going to know "If we
are
talking about something criminal" when you give complete support to an
argument
that totally rejects asking ANY basic questions!?
You alter and equivocate around your initial complete support for Jerry's
absurd
argument then you have the audacity to assert I have misrepresented you.
Run away and hide in shame again.
> I was saying Assemblies ought not to waste time
> determining guilt or innocence if someone's safety was at issue.
That is not what you said at all.
Jerry-
"you wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police"
Susan- "Exactly".
Almost the entire scenario discussion to that point revolved around
the need to ascertain basic information BEFORE making any decision/
recommendation. Jerry was restating his dogged absurdity that all that
was required was to ask the alleged victim if they wished to call the
police.
You gave that spurious argument/position your total support-"exactly".
"determining guilt or innocence" remains a non issue....no matter how
many times you or Jerry cut the response and keep raising the red herring.
> >this [determining guilt or innocence] was never an issue, this is another
> > "furphy" another "red herring" another "device of distraction"...
>
> And that is why no one talks to you.
Because I wont let you or Jerry get away with the straw man argument
that seeking basic information some how equates with "determining guilt
or innocence"?
Yes, I can see why being thus exposed drives you back behind your paper
thin killfile wall.
>You insist on insisting they don't mean what they say the mean.
LOL! Perhaps you might like to try saying what you mean....because
what you say (see above) clearly does not correlate with what you
think you meant ;-)
> There is no sense in trying to communicate with someone
> who does that.
And there is no sense in trying to communicate with someone
who attempts to pretend that "exactly" means "well, sort of but not
really when you think about it" when their argument has been
exposed as a crock.
> I will not be responding to anything Randy reposts for you at this point.
I don't blame you Susan....Randy is a right bastard...one of the "no ones"
who refuses to talk to me...if I was going to be sticking my fingers in my
ears and playing "Please tell your father I'm not speaking to him" I
certainly
wouldn't be doing it with the reposts of likes of young Randy Burns;-)
How about Chris or Paul? You seem to like Paul, pasty pom that he is,
perhaps Paul could play repost for us? Then you could continue-"If you
don't know why I'm upset then I'm not telling you...."nasty, obnoxious,
paranoid, jackass" " ;-)
Paul-
>Clearly, having guidance doesn't solve the problems, or
>make it easy to deal with being put into this kind of
>difficult situation - but it sure is better than having
>no guidance!
Susan-
"Sure. But in the Baha'i community you are still going to be dealing with a
bunch of amateurs."
As long as wilful ignorance and a culture of denial prevail.
Rod
> >
> >But Susan.... Apparently Rod and Paul *FIRST* want the assemblies to
> >determine if they are rational, male or female, married, not engaging in
> >frivolous accusations
Face it Jerry...the 7th rode to your rescue, counted your dead, and
abandoned
you.
Susan knows a little of history.....ask her to relate the 'Fetterman
Massacre'
to you.
While she does I will roll a durry from the tobacco pouch you have so kindly
provided ;-)
> Dear Jerry,
>
> I don't know about Paul, but that did appear to be what Rod was suggesting
Yes, Rod was and still is suggesting that basic information gathering must
precede
any kneejerk assumption that a criminal offence has been committed or that
the
(potentially) under age/disabled or intimidated alleged victim is frightened
shitless
by some dropkick shouting "rape, kidnap, assault".
And Rod is still rejecting the incessant straw man that such basic
information gathering
equates with ANY notion of determining 'guilt/innocence' or that such an
basic
questioning would be exhaustively lengthy.
> which is why I sided with you on this one.
I doubt it. You saw the opportunity to take another sniper shot from behind
your killfile and it ricochet straight back at you.
Now you ride off to leave poor Jerry with a very squeeky voice.
> Apparently Rod didn't get what I was siding with you about.
Sure I did, here it is again-
Jerry-
> >If someone came up to you and said they had been robbed or raped, you
> >wouldn't worry about trying to ascertain anything about the alleged
> >crime, you would ask the person if they've called the police. Why is it
> >any different when the allegation involves sexual harassment?
> Susan responds-
> "Exactly. Baha'is institutions would be potentially liable if they advised
> people to do anything else"
Jerry is arguing (still) that an allegation of "sexual harassment" is no
different
to an allegation of rape and, without "trying to ascertain anything about
the
alleged crime", should immediately result in asking the victim "if they've
called
the police".
"Exactly" says Susan "Baha'is institutions would be potentially liable if
they advised
people to do anything else"
What's not to get? Somebody (potentially) says "Nice jugs" and Jerry and
Susan
want the recipient of this "sexual harassment" to call the cops.
> Don't club Paul and Rod together.
Awwww don't split us up Miss!.....We'll be good!
> Paul can be a pretty decent human being if you don't rub him the wrong
way.
Steve says 'slowly' is what Paul prefers.....I decline to get involved.
>As for Rod, it is impossible *not* to rub him the wrong way,
Sensitive skin.....can't stand contact with baseless innuendo.
> which is why I don't waste too much time with him.
And why you and Jerry are totally alone in your on/off killfiles? ;-)
Rod
Randy Burns <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:RJbob.31578$AU....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Good work Rod. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your
perseverance
> on the subject of improving Baha'i procedures. I think your years of
> complaining have finally borne fruit in the new US sponsored guidelines on
> domestic abuse.
>
> Way to go kid!
>
Thanks Randy....I graciously accept this trophy and thank Mom, Dad, the
Holly spirit that moves me and all those splendid little people who have
helped
along the way who can now be dumped.....speaking of which....your fired
sunshine.
"I will not be responding to anything Randy reposts for you at this point."
Susan M. (Warmest)
Now, I don't know what it is that you have done to upset Susan...it's none
of
my business and I won't be asking questions.Experience leads to the
inevitable
conclusion that she (in Her wisdom) will *never* reveal what your offence
is...
not to you, not to me, not to herself. It's a secret.
But we can be certain that you must have been pretty bloody rude Randy
Burns...
perhaps even abusive. As a consequence I have asked Susan if she wishes to
contact the police and now take the opportunity to ask you if you would care
to contact a lawyer.
This concludes Steps 1+2 of Jerry's process.
I'm glad we had this little chat Randy ;-)
All the best.
Rod
Rod
> >The question is, though, what information gathering
> >processes are going to be followed to allow A the
> >space and safety to tell us what she knows
> > leading
> >to the suspension and loss of voting rights of
> >B, and the attention of police/social services
> >to his crimes.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I'm talking a bit off the top of my head here because I haven't
> But I would think that notifying the authorities and losing voting rights
are
> really two different issues. If criminal action is reported to an Assembly
they
> have the responsibility to report the matter to the proper authorities
whether
> or not they have completed their own investigation.
And after (what are we up to? 130+ posts over four threads?) we still don't
have any guidelines/procedures/policy or even 'suggestion' on how to go
about
determining if and when a "reported action" falls into the category of
'criminal'.
It's bloody frightening.
Snip
>. However, if not enough evidence can
> be adduced to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt necessary for a
criminal
> conviction, the Assembly is still free to conduct its own investigation
> afterwards under its own terms.
"under its own terms"........Made up as it goes along.
No guarantee of any 'hearing'- fair or otherwise.
"We will have it [due process] by the time we are running a country"
Susan M
> >Apparently, there *are* some Baha'i guidelines on
> >how to handle situations of domestic abuse - we'd
> >need these kind of guidelines to increase the chances
> >of such situations being handled properly in cases
> >where people like Jerry are chair of the LSA,
>
> Women are usually better with this stuff. ;-}
Ouch Jerry! The 7th has shown you the horse's arse ;-)
> Jerry is a new Baha'i .
Double ouch! What was that about "abandonment issues"? ;-)
>and these materials are new as well.
Ahhhhhh That would explain it then....Jere said he had found "lots"
way back.....If they are "new" he is no doubt having trouble getting
them out of the bubble wrap ;-)
Pop........Pop........Pop....
> If I've not yet seen them you can bet Jerry hasn't either.
Oh! Doubtless........Yours is the all seeing eye Susan.
> But they are being disseminated fairly quickly.
2003? Good thing no Assembly tried dealing with complex
divorce and domestic violence issues prior to this hey?
> Our Assembly has a deepening on it this week.
Joy to the world.........we all sleep safe tonight.
Jerry Joplin
> You may wish to plead that because of your Claytons Killfile you had missed
> my preceding 30+ posts debunking this ridiculous stance...but even Jerry's
> cut and paste hatchet jobs left sufficient remnant of the thread context to
> ascertain
> what was going down.
I've been practicing the cut-n-paste hatchet jobs at home. Pretty good
huh? Maybe we'll have to have a Cut-n-Paste Hatchet Toss competition.
>
> Susan(from separate backflip post)-
> "If we are talking about something criminal then it may be best not to ask
> and
> contact the authorities anyhow".
>
> And how in the name of sweet baby Jesus are you EVER going to know "If we
> are
> talking about something criminal" when you give complete support to an
> argument
> that totally rejects asking ANY basic questions!?
Rod, I think everyone innately understands this, except for you. It
seems Paul has even abandoned your position. I think you've read a few
too many "Duty of Care" school system provisions to be able to think
clearly any more.
> Almost the entire scenario discussion to that point revolved around
> the need to ascertain basic information BEFORE making any decision/
> recommendation. Jerry was restating his dogged absurdity that all that
> was required was to ask the alleged victim if they wished to call the
> police.
"All that was required was to ask..." Paul would have a label for this
type of statement, but since I've grown accustomed to such a continuous
stream of these aforementioned labels from you, it really doesn't affect
me any more. So, no apologies are necessary, I understand Rod.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> What's not to get? Somebody (potentially) says "Nice jugs" and Jerry and
> Susan
> want the recipient of this "sexual harassment" to call the cops.
In your scenario, in case you've completely forgotten, the member
claimed "repeated unwanted sexual advances." So the first step, I
believe, is to see if they want to contact the authorities to provide
for their safety. Susan goes a step further and notes that if the LSA
chairman in question were to identify a potential threat to the safety
of the member, then the chairman should call the police whether or not
the member agrees.
Actually, I agree with her assessment, and would go back to modify the
procedures if I thought it would be worth the effort.
Jerry
Rod
> Rod wrote:
> > What's not to get? Somebody (potentially) says "Nice jugs" and Jerry and
> > Susan
> > want the recipient of this "sexual harassment" to call the cops.
>
> In your scenario, in case you've completely forgotten, the member
> claimed "repeated unwanted sexual advances."
Which, as has been pointed out a dozen times only to be cut and
ignored,
could mean 'A' has been the recipient of-"Nice jugs", "Watcha doing
tonight"
, "How about it baby" or any number of lines that may or may not
constitute
criminal offense. No one will ever have any insight unless basic
questions
are asked and you refuse to consider asking them.
> So the first step, I
> believe, is to see if they want to contact the authorities to provide
> for their safety. Susan goes a step further and notes that if the LSA
> chairman in question were to identify a potential threat to the safety
> of the member, then the chairman should call the police whether or not
> the member agrees.
What is the point of continualy restating your/Susans position while
cutting and ignoring the arguement that shoots it down in flames?
At no point have you or Susan given ANY indication as to how an
Assembly
would go about "identifying a potential threat to the safety of the
member".
In fact you have consistantly mocked, scoffed and rejected any
questioning/
inquiry that would enable such a determination.
> Actually, I agree with her assessment, and would go back to modify the
> procedures if I thought it would be worth the effort.
Yes, and in about six months from now you will be modifying your
procedures
to incorperate basic information gathering and claiming that's what
you intended all along.
Rod.
Paul Hammond
> > What's not to get? Somebody (potentially) says "Nice jugs" and Jerry and
> > Susan
> > want the recipient of this "sexual harassment" to call the cops.
>
> In your scenario, in case you've completely forgotten, the member
> claimed "repeated unwanted sexual advances."
I thought it was definitely "persistent domestic abuse" by
now, Jerr?
DId you attend A and B's wedding? Can I see the pictures?
Paul Hammond
>
> Rod, I think everyone innately understands this, except for you. It
> seems Paul has even abandoned your position. I think you've read a few
> too many "Duty of Care" school system provisions to be able to think
> clearly any more.
>
Don't you DARE, EVER, EVER presume to speak for me, you little
shit.
I'm still waiting for an apology from you for the last time
you lied about what I was saying.
I agree with Rod. Having *you* in charge of the LSA would
be dangerous indeed.
Don't read my mind. Read my words.
Paul
Rod
> > You may wish to plead that because of your Claytons Killfile you had missed
> > my preceding 30+ posts debunking this ridiculous stance...but even Jerry's
> > cut and paste hatchet jobs left sufficient remnant of the thread context to
> > ascertain
> > what was going down.
>
> I've been practicing the cut-n-paste hatchet jobs at home. Pretty good
> huh? Maybe we'll have to have a Cut-n-Paste Hatchet Toss competition.
This makes no sense.....is it supposed to be funny?
>
> >
> > Susan(from separate backflip post)-
> > "If we are talking about something criminal then it may be best not to ask
> > and
> > contact the authorities anyhow".
> >
> > And how in the name of sweet baby Jesus are you EVER going to know "If we
> > are
> > talking about something criminal" when you give complete support to an
> > argument
> > that totally rejects asking ANY basic questions!?
>
> Rod, I think everyone innately understands this, except for you.
You are now claiming that everyone has an "innate" understanding of
what qualifies as criminal or non criminal behaviour? Whithout asking
questions?
I will add this to my now extensive file of 'Jerry's Absurdaties'.
> It seems Paul has even abandoned your position.
I have seen no evidence of this...but Paul is responsible to maintain
Pauls position, not mine.
> I think you've read a few too many "Duty of Care" school system provisions
> to be able to think clearly any more.
Yea...When there is conflict or contention among the kids we don't ask
questions we just make decisions based on our "innate understanding"
of who
is good and who is bad and what is criminal and what is not.
> > Almost the entire scenario discussion to that point revolved around
> > the need to ascertain basic information BEFORE making any decision/
> > recommendation. Jerry was restating his dogged absurdity that all that
> > was required was to ask the alleged victim if they wished to call the
> > police.
>
> "All that was required was to ask..." Paul would have a label for this
> type of statement,
Why avoid the issue with speculation as to what Paul might say?
> but since I've grown accustomed to such a continuous
> stream of these aforementioned labels from you, it really doesn't affect
> me any more. So, no apologies are necessary, I understand Rod.
I have no idea what this little oblique/obscure rant was about...but
it certainly didn't touch or address the issue/question at hand.
Rod.
Rod
Paul Hammond <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.0310...@posting.google.com...
Dear Paul
I find it difficult to understand why you are admonishing one TRB
contributor for assumed psychic insight when the content, language
and tone of your post all clearly confirm that you have 'assumed'
permission to use your remarkably accurate psychic facility to read
my private thoughts and subsequently present them as your public post.
This must stop Paul.
In all fairness I am obliged to forgive much of your psychic intrusion
in that you have preformed a truly remarkable job in toning down
and censoring my original 'shadow side' thoughts.
I will be sleeping with tinfoil wrapped round my bonce tonight.
Rod.
Rod
news:<vq5tef4...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Rod wrote:
> > > What's not to get? Somebody (potentially) says "Nice jugs" and Jerry
and
> > > Susan
> > > want the recipient of this "sexual harassment" to call the cops.
> >
> > In your scenario, in case you've completely forgotten, the member
> > claimed "repeated unwanted sexual advances."
>
> I thought it was definitely "persistent domestic abuse" by
> now, Jerr?
Oh! do try to keep up Paul! It was "kidnap, rape and assault"
committed by a highly effective old guy with a bucket on 85%
of the people who ask questions living in the Imperial Washington
precinct.
> DId you attend A and B's wedding?
I did....the kiss was waaaaaaaay too long....so I called the cops.
> Can I see the pictures?
Sure....Jerry caught the bouquet.................beautiful frock.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> I will be sleeping with tinfoil wrapped round my bonce tonight.
So much more fashionable than a brown paper bag but just as functional!
>
> Rod.
>
>
>
Jerry Joplin
> What is the point of continualy restating your/Susans position while
> cutting and ignoring the arguement that shoots it down in flames?
Because its so much fun! (?)
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> Don't you DARE, EVER, EVER presume to speak for me, you little
> shit.
You know Paul, this is a free forum and I can say whatever I please. So
lighten up and get used to it buddy.
Jerry
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Paul Hammond wrote:
> > Don't you DARE, EVER, EVER presume to speak for me, you little
> > shit.
>
> You know Paul, this is a free forum and I can say whatever I please.
Your right, no one can compel you to principled/ethical behaviour.
'No Rules' rules.
> So lighten up and get used to it buddy.
Deepening question-
Do you know who said-
"I don't know who you are....but you are certainly not a Baha'i"
?
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
So glad your pretence has dropped.
Let the 'fun' begin.
ALMA ENGELS
Interesting post, Rod.
Alma
>
>
ALMA ENGELS
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
Baha'i albeit a new one. One would suppose that you would want to present a
positive image of Baha'i, especially for the lurkers who are not Baha'is.
But in my opinion your posts do nothing to enhance the notion that Baha'i is
worth considering. What would Baha'u'llah do or say? BTW I am just a
semi-lurker and a BIGS.
Alma
Paul Hammond
When you try to pass off some bullshit as "this is what
Paul said", while you still owe me an apology for your
most recent attempt to misrepresent me?
No, I will not lighten up.
You need to take this a little more seriously. Having
someone go around passing off lies as "what Paul
really said" is not something I'm going to just
shrug my shoulders about, comprendez?
Don't do it to me again. Ever. You have been warned.
Paul
Rod
> Alma
Hi Alma...
From my perspective the most interesting thing that is going on is
the blind eye that is being turned (by BIGS apologists) towards
Jerry/Susans lies. misrepresentation, evasion and 'when it suits them'
killfiles.
Ask Jerry why he repeatedly cuts and ignores questions and answers
and he responds with the rhetorical- "Because it's fun" ?
It is indeed just a game to Jerry and Susan...a game without ethical/
principled rules.
I'm glad you came out of lurk mode to but in two bobs worth....the
only way this online Baha'i culture of 'any crap goes' will change is
when enough folk raise objection.
Take care.
Rod.
ALMA ENGELS <thir...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DrYob.202630$0v4.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jerry Joplin
> You are right. It is a free forum. And a Baha'i free forum. You are a
> Baha'i albeit a new one. One would suppose that you would want to present a
> positive image of Baha'i, especially for the lurkers who are not Baha'is.
> But in my opinion your posts do nothing to enhance the notion that Baha'i is
> worth considering. What would Baha'u'llah do or say? BTW I am just a
> semi-lurker and a BIGS.
That is an easy observation from up there in the peanut gallery. Why
don't you first try countering some of the slanderish statements made
about the Faith on this forum, and then see how you will become the
object of a continous stream of invectives? Perhaps I don't deal with
them very effectively, but at least I'm trying.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>don't you first try countering some of the slanderish statements made
>about the Faith on this forum, and then see how you will become the
>object of a continous stream of invectives?
Alma thinks those are okay.
Jerry Joplin
> No, I will not lighten up.
Ka-PLONK...
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
From my perspective the most interesting thing that is going on is
> the blind eye that is being turned (by BIGS apologists) towards
> Jerry/Susans lies. misrepresentation, evasion and 'when it suits them'
> killfiles.
> Ask Jerry why he repeatedly cuts and ignores questions and answers
> and he responds with the rhetorical- "Because it's fun" ?
The only "lies" I've seen thrown around are not from Susan and Jerry.
And its hard to deal with someone who tries their best to insult you in
every post, without trying to make it some fun. In fact, I really
think you are actually Yosemite Sam typing away in the disguise of
someone named "Rod" and then everything you say seems to make perfect
sense....
Ya shark-livered varmit!
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
>
> Alma thinks those are okay.
Ahhhh! Well that certainly clarifies a few things :-)
Thanks,
Jerry
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Paul Hammond wrote:
>
> > No, I will not lighten up.
>
> Ka-PLONK...
Don't get excited Paul....I'm under "PLONK" killfile number two
and he is still having "fun" with lies, misrepresentation and rant
in my direction.
Susan killfiles and attempts to talk to you through others.
Jerry killfiles and just keeps on dribbling.
Jerry Joplin
> Don't get excited Paul....I'm under "PLONK" killfile number two
> and he is still having "fun" with lies, misrepresentation and rant
> in my direction.
>
> Susan killfiles and attempts to talk to you through others.
> Jerry killfiles and just keeps on dribbling.
Actually Rod, your haven't gone into the killfile this time. Do you
want me to plonk you? I would be glad too, however last time you kept
begging people to reply to your posts so we would see it.
Jerry
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Rod wrote:
> From my perspective the most interesting thing that is going on is
> > the blind eye that is being turned (by BIGS apologists) towards
> > Jerry/Susans lies. misrepresentation, evasion and 'when it suits them'
> > killfiles.
> > Ask Jerry why he repeatedly cuts and ignores questions and answers
> > and he responds with the rhetorical- "Because it's fun" ?
>
> The only "lies" I've seen thrown around are not from Susan and Jerry.
You are welcome to make a first attempt at ethical behaviour through
some provision of substantiation.
Paul, I and several others have all clearly articulated the points at which
you lie/misrepresent.....you simply make noise, mirror the accusation and
flee substantiation.
> And its hard to deal with someone who tries their best to insult you in
> every post,
No one insulted you without extensive prior forewarning regarding your
incessant misrepresentation. You made 'straw man' misrepresentation
your "fun" game from the outset...the majority of TRB contributors
have commented upon it and some have sworn at you for it.
You got the response you deserved......so 'cry tough'.
> without trying to make it some fun.
Your original claim to having "fun" related to your propensity to cut and
ignore
both questions and responses, something you have done from the outset.
Now you wish to assert that avoiding or obliterating the issue was "fun"
in response to the "insults" you received for avoiding and obliterating the
issue.?
Paul, Randy, Karen, Steve, Brid, Alma and I have all raised objections
to your behaviour. The only response you have to this observation is
to allude to 'enemies of the faith'.
You are not the faith Jerry.....nor are you defending it....nor are you
representing it.
Rod.
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> ALMA ENGELS wrote:
> > You are right. It is a free forum. And a Baha'i free forum. You are a
> > Baha'i albeit a new one. One would suppose that you would want to
present a
> > positive image of Baha'i, especially for the lurkers who are not
Baha'is.
> > But in my opinion your posts do nothing to enhance the notion that
Baha'i is
> > worth considering. What would Baha'u'llah do or say? BTW I am just a
> > semi-lurker and a BIGS.
>
> That is an easy observation from up there in the peanut gallery.
I'm glad we are all agreed then..."an easy observation"-
"But in my opinion your posts do nothing to enhance the notion that Baha'i
is
worth considering."
Dead easy.
Alma observes that your posts do nothing to enhance the standing or
perception
of the Baha'i faith and you agree with her.....so do I...so would any
contributor or member of the "penut gallery".....it is indeed easy to
observe.
> Why don't you first try countering some of the slanderish statements
made
> about the Faith on this forum,
Who is making "slanderish statements" about the Faith? Paul? Me? Who?
Show us the anti faith "slander" you are "countering".
(I predict no more than Jerry "fun"- Cut, ignore and avoid the question)
> and then see how you will become the object of a continous stream of
> invectives?
I haven't seen anyone swear at you for defending the faith Jerry.
I have seen quite a few people admonish you for straw man misrepresentation
and a couple of contributors swear at you for lying....but your St George
against the anti faith dragons complex is bogus/fantasy.
> Perhaps I don't deal with them very effectively, but at least I'm trying.
Deal with what/who Jerry? Who are the phantom enemies of the faith that
you have to counter and contend with? Show us the "slanderish statements"
that have so enraged you and obliged you to go on the offensive with lie,
innuendo and misrepresentation- all in defence of the faith.
Rod.
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Susan Maneck wrote:
> >
> > Alma thinks those are okay.
Susan thinks she can read peoples minds without reading their posts.
> Ahhhh! Well that certainly clarifies a few things :-)
Jerry believes her.
I hope Jerry and Susan get together and marry.....that will make two
people miserable instead of potentially four.
Paul Hammond
> Paul Hammond wrote:
>
> > No, I will not lighten up.
>
> Ka-PLONK...
>
>
What a wanker!
Paul
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Rod wrote:
> > Don't get excited Paul....I'm under "PLONK" killfile number two
> > and he is still having "fun" with lies, misrepresentation and rant
> > in my direction.
> >
> > Susan killfiles and attempts to talk to you through others.
> > Jerry killfiles and just keeps on dribbling.
>
> Actually Rod, your haven't gone into the killfile this time.
You can't read and you can't count. You "Plonked" me for the
second time just recently and haven't shut up since.
> Do you want me to plonk you?
What I "want" of any cyber Baha'i has alredy been clearly articulated-
Accurate reflection of post content, absence of misrepresentation/lie/
straw man arguements, clear response to pertinant questions, no
cut and paste post mutilation, no layering of obscure or irrelivent
analogies, avoidance of snide innuendo and evasive non answers...
......contriputors who do not employ all of these obnoxious behaviours
because they think it's "fun".
Having consistantly demonstrated your inability to contribute without
resorting to these devices of distraction I don't give a rats arse wether
you "plonk" me or not.
Your desire/practice of doing so only serves to further demonstrate the
contempt you (and Susan) hold for the Baha'i principles of consultation,
peace making and ethical behaviour.
Go right ahead....knock yourself out.....again.
> I would be glad too,
No doubt you would be most relieved....each time you (or Susan)
are caught and exposed in an untenable position you reach for
the killfile and run.
> however last time you kept
> begging people to reply to your posts ...
In your fantasy realm-
Saying "please" is ongoing "begging".
Pointing out that you have "failed" to answer a question is "invective".
An unsubstantiated allegation of "unwarranted sexual advance" is "rape.
kidnap, assault".
Anyone/everyone who advocates the implementation of 'fair due process'
within the Baha'i community is an enemy of the faith who you must "contend"
with.
> so we would see it.
LOL.....I want the 'lurker' to see it Jerry.
I want them to see exactly how important issues are dealt with.
I want them to see how you (and Susan) deal with vital issues
like those within 'Scenario' or 'Origins of Obsession'.
I want them to see the evasion, flippancy, dismissiveness,
filibuster, misrepresentation, lie and obstruction of the issue.
Wether you come out and make a fool of yourself or hide
beneath your killfile rock....I can and will continue to expose
your fundamental disregard for Baha'i principles and core issues.
ALMA ENGELS
Alma
ALMA ENGELS
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
Slow down Jerry and let me speak for myself. Susan has no ability to speak
for me.
Perhaps you need to step back and consider who post here.
Some are non-Haifan Baha'is -- they like to call us sans-Guardian Baha'is
but I think they are as sans-Guardian as we are but don't realize that.
They will post endlessly on why they belong to the groups they do. Does no
good to discuss this with them for they won't change their beliefs. BUT
their posts are boring and probably most people ignore them after a while.
Then there are the non-Baha'is -- some of whom viciously attack anything
Baha'i. Doesn't do much good to reply for that just gives them a chance to
post some more. The language of some of them is deplorable and Ithink that
turns off readers after a while.
Some non-Baha'is are not vicious at all and some of them support much of
Baha'i and Baha'u'llah.
Then there are the Haifan Baha'is. They don't all post alike or think
alike. I think that all of them have had to reconcile some areas of the
Faith that seem contradictory. And they do so in different ways. All, so
far as I am concerned, are legitimate so long as they have honestly tried to
reconcile things. I respect the fact that we don't all think alike.
You are very new at being a Baha'i. And like most of us, including myself,
you were probably exposed to the 'traditional' teaching. I think this is
more so now that Ruhi is in place.
It took me about three years before I reached a point where I had to
reconcile some things or lose my Faith. Evolution and the Baha'i idea that
man was always man and had divine guidance was one of them. I tried to
picture an amoeba Manifestation. Online I found I could get opinions and
pointers. But not too long thereafter, someone online completely
misunderstood me and thought I was challenging the Covenant and reported me.
This person was in Florida and I am in Arizona. But she reported me to her
ABM and it reached Arizona. I was investigated and at the end the ABM said
I was not challenging the Covenant. But in the several-month process I
learned that the accusor was protected. (Because this was email, I knew who
she was.) So far as I know she was never reprimanded or cautioned about
bearing false witness. On the other hand I had no rights -- not even the
right to know the charges. I tried to interest some in the Administrative
Order in a consultation concerning the accussed situation and rights. But
none of the members of the AO even bothered to reply to my email -- except
for one long after the fact from National which didn't address my points.
This greatly disturbed me though it was a relatively minor investigation. I
have since learned that my experience is not unusual. There are many who
have had the same type of experience. I have come to terms with this by
recognizing that the Administrative Order is not always right in its
actions. And that it rarely if ever acknowledges it was wrong or attempts
to prevent the same thing happening again.
As I said, you are very new. I think you need to deepen and continue your
independent investigation. I don't know where it will lead you. God does.
Nor am I sure just what you think are slanderous statements. Give examples
and we can discuss them. Perhaps there is some truth behind them and as
Baha'is we need to work to eliminate them.
In peace,
Alma
ALMA ENGELS
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fa5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I think that any religion has some paradoxes, etc., that lurk below the
surface of a fundamentalist acceptance of everything on the literal level.
Baha'i is no exception. I also think that most converts to Baha'i are not
aware of these and/or their importance. When they become so obvious they
can't be ignored, the believer has to either arrive at a reconcilation on
another level or leave the faith. I wonder if Jerry has started this
process yet.
Alma
BTW though I am relatively inactive now, for years on MSN I was first an
assistant for Baha'i to the religion area run by Lynne Bundesen and held a
weekly chat called 'Baha'i and Friends' (title due to the fact I wasn't sure
how many Baha'is were there) and posted Baha'i writings, etc to that forum.
Lynne eventually left MSN and started her own place called "Our Faiths" - a
mostly chat area with some posts. I left there because though it was stated
to be in the works, there was no Baha'i chat area. In the meantime, I
continued to post to the independent Baha'iandFriends bb run by Jerry???.
Paul posted there too and so did Karen. I finally left that and recently
tried to find it but it is no longer there. I have been quite active.
Susan Maneck
>Susan -- you have no way of knowing how I think. You owe me an apology.
I know the views you have expressed here and that what I said is consistent
with those. You have stood by silently and watched ex-Baha'is abuse others and
attack the institutions. You have even participated in some of these attacks
yourself. And then you have the gaul to act judgemental towards Baha'is saying
things like "What would Baha'u'llah do?" no matter how courteous they have been
relatively speaking. Well, let's ask what Abdu'l-Baha would do. This is what He
says:
"All must consider themselves to be of the order of subjects, submissive and
obedient to the commandments of God and the laws of the House of Justice.
Should any deviate by so much as a needle's point from the decrees of the
Universal House of Justice, or falter in his compliance therewith, then is he
of the outcast and rejected."
Now when you've done the above you can pass judgement on someone like Jerry.
But before then forget, and you certainly won't get any apologies from me!
Rod
(You won't make me "beg" will you? ;-)
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031103003243...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >
> >Susan -- you have no way of knowing how I think. You owe me an apology.
>
> I know the views you have expressed here and that what I said is
consistent
> with those.
No it's not. It's just profoundly rude straw man psychic assumption
argument.
> You have stood by silently and watched ex-Baha'is abuse others and
> attack the institutions.
Neither Alma nor I nor any other Baha'i is entitled or obliged to admonish
"ex Baha'is" or non Baha'is to any standard of behaviour other than what
they choose to manifest. Non Baha'is can conduct themselves as complete
bastards and say any dam thing they like about the institutions....such
behaviour
is not in the province of 'Baha'i responsibility' to respond to.
> You have even participated in some of these attacks yourself.
Given your history ,of well below Baha'i standard, unjustified and
unexplained
personal attacks on a fellow Baha'i and your consistent refusal to provide
substantiation of *any* allegation.....we are not going to see any links
or examples of your assertion against Alma....are we.
> And then you have the gaul to act judgemental towards Baha'is saying
> things like "What would Baha'u'llah do?"
A righteous bust.....almost everybody has commented on the "fun" Jerry
has misrepresenting, evading and distorting issues. You leap to his defence
on the sole grounds that he is the only little Baha'i apologist soldier left
in
the TRB ranks and that, in your eyes, grants him immunity for any abhorrent
behaviour.
> no matter how courteous they have been relatively speaking.
LOL! "relatively speaking"!!!??? Relative to what/who? Errol?
There is no "courteous" behaviour in deliberate misrepresentation,
lies, evasion or Claytons killfiles
> Well, let's ask what Abdu'l-Baha would do.
With liars? Abdul Baha says don't let them get away with it, it
only encourages them.
> Now when you've done the above you can pass judgement on someone like
Jerry.
The jury has long returned....the unanimous judgement is he is impossible to
communicate with and requires an ethics implant.
> But before then forget, and you certainly won't get any apologies from me!
Nor any substantiation of your 'noise' ....nor anything other than a blind
eye to
Jerrys obnoxious behaviour.
Paul Hammond
And Jerry thinks that it is "because he defends the faith" that
thee and me swear at him!
Jerry, consider the counter-example of Pat Kholi. Consider
the fact that I myself defend the Baha'i Faith from attack
where I consider the attack unwarranted or ill conceived (yes,
Error, I'm talking about you) - and to such an extent that
the "peanut gallery", more than offering invective, calls
me an AO spy and threatens to come to where I live to beat
me up.
It's your *behaviour*, not your position that fucks me right
off, Jerr.
Paul
Jerry Joplin
> You are welcome to make a first attempt at ethical behaviour through
> some provision of substantiation.
> Paul, I and several others have all clearly articulated the points at which
> you lie/misrepresent.....you simply make noise, mirror the accusation and
> flee substantiation.
Yes, I will take you up on your offer. First let's try to determine
what you consider the truth, a lie, a misrepresentation, or an honest
mistake. So please identify the following quote as one of the above,
or give another category:
Paul Hammond wrote of Jerry Joplin:
> ... That is why your insistence
> that Karen's study is rubbish because it's not perfect is
> just so much more Jerry bullshit.
Truth?
Lie?
Misrepresentation?
Or, honest mistake?
> Paul, Randy, Karen, Steve, Brid, Alma and I have all raised objections
> to your behaviour. The only response you have to this observation is
> to allude to 'enemies of the faith'.
Excuse me, *YOU* made the allusion to "enemies of the faith." I frankly
do not believe there is an official definition of "enemies of the
faith." Go ahead and check the archives, perhaps I'm wrong, but
perhaps you're wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. If you're wrong,
will you?
> You are not the faith Jerry.....nor are you defending it....nor are you
> representing it.
Never said I was "the faith" or "defending it" or even "representing
it." Red herring, I can not be responsible for your descriptions of me
or my actions.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> You can't read and you can't count. You "Plonked" me for the
> second time just recently and haven't shut up since.
Tell you what Rod, here's a challenge for you. Show me in the archive
where I PLONKed you the second time. Show me...
I already know it doesn't exist, because I've only PLONKed you once. In
fact, I've only had two PLONKs on this forum, one for you, and one for Paul.
If you can't find the second PLONK for you, then is your above statement
a lie, or misrepresentation, or is it an honest mistake?
Time for an honesty check Rod, what is it?
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> As I said, you are very new. I think you need to deepen and continue your
> independent investigation. I don't know where it will lead you. God does.
> Nor am I sure just what you think are slanderous statements. Give examples
> and we can discuss them. Perhaps there is some truth behind them and as
> Baha'is we need to work to eliminate them.
Alma, thanks for a thoughtful note. I'm not ignoring the previous text,
but just wanted to comment here because you're asking me a direct question.
The examples of slander are really quite numerous.
The slanders seem to be broken down into 2 sets. The first one is the
direct slander attack, which has trailed off now that Fred doesn't spam
us with his "Baha'i Technique" stuff. George occasionally re-spams us
with this, but the frequency has definitely diminished. Darrick posts
racist interpretations of writings. So, from what I perceive, Fred,
George, Nima, and Darrick are not interested in really discussing any of
these matters, they just want to throw out enough slander to affect
independent investigation by seekers. For example, go over to google
groups and do a search for Baha'i FAQ (FAQ is a common search phrase)
and see what you get - mostly its Fred's "FAQ." I think these are the
most important slanders to question. Jim started a new "FAQ" but didn't
follow up on it. I'm too new to be able to form a FAQ unless its a copy
and paste job from www.bahai.org.
Then I would say there are other attacks which are actually fallacious
arguments applied to the whole of the Baha'i Faith. A good example of
this is Rod's statement that the school system was far and away more
spiritual environment than the Baha'i Faith. Which on the face of it,
is patently absurd, but it touches on the type of attack which is often
applied to the whole of the Baha'i Faith. Rod has apparently had a bad
experience with the faith down somehow down in OZ, or he's just an
incorrigible curmudgeon (who knows?). But he applies his experience
sample to the whole of the Baha'i Faith, and declares that he doesn't
want to understand the faith, he wants to expose it, and will apparently
use whatever means necessary.
While I do think its important to try and understand what is behind the
different types of attacks, it has to be viewed within the entire
context of their beliefs and motives. For instance, Robert attacks the
faith because he's a Christian and believes the Baha'i Faith is somehow
associated with the anti-Christ. How do you understand and correct
anything within the faith to counter that attack? Its impossible, the
only thing that can be corrected is Robert's opinion.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> I think that any religion has some paradoxes, etc., that lurk below the
> surface of a fundamentalist acceptance of everything on the literal level.
> Baha'i is no exception. I also think that most converts to Baha'i are not
> aware of these and/or their importance. When they become so obvious they
> can't be ignored, the believer has to either arrive at a reconcilation on
> another level or leave the faith. I wonder if Jerry has started this
> process yet.
There is another process whereas the believers in the faith hold their
own doubts about perceived paradoxes, in the context of the entire
faith. For example, most Christians don't really believe in all of the
doctrines of their respective denominations, but they don't leave their
faith, or even reconcile their beliefs, they resolve to hold them in
context of the whole teaching of the Church.
In other words, they believe in the importance of their collective faith
over their individual interpretations.
Jerry
Randy Burns
for that second PLONK.
ka PLONK!
--
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
news:vqcuqtp...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Joplin
> I'm sure you're not worth five seconds of anyone's time, Jerry, in checking
> for that second PLONK.
So its okay to lie about someone if it takes more than 5 seconds to
verify? Or just Jerry? Or do you have any cogent point at all Randy?
Jerry
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
>
> "Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> > Paul Hammond wrote:
> > > Don't you DARE, EVER, EVER presume to speak for me, you little
> > > shit.
> >
> > You know Paul, this is a free forum and I can say whatever I please. So
> > lighten up and get used to it buddy.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> You are right. It is a free forum. And a Baha'i free forum.
Unfortunately not, Alma - there's a few of them around.
>You are a
> Baha'i albeit a new one.
Tell that to the Marines!
> One would suppose that you would want to present a
> positive image of Baha'i, especially for the lurkers who are not Baha'is.
He's trying ... very trying.
> But in my opinion your posts do nothing to enhance the notion that Baha'i
is
> worth considering.
Yeah but don't put him off. Since Janis arrived my job has been so much
easier.
> What would Baha'u'llah do or say?
Not a lot. This is the material he has to work with.
> BTW I am just a
> semi-lurker and a BIGS.
And a fine specimen of both!!!!!
> Alma
>
>
Rod
Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
I count three questions....which one would you like cut and ignored in
"fun" defence of the faith first?
Steve Marshall
>fact, I've only had two PLONKs on this forum, one for you, and one for Paul.
I know what a plonker is, but what's a PLONK?
I assume it's Baha'i-related, or it wouldn't be here.
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>Then I would say there are other attacks which are actually fallacious
>arguments applied to the whole of the Baha'i Faith. A good example of
>this is Rod's statement that the school system was far and away more
>spiritual environment than the Baha'i Faith.
You're still insisting on this interpretation, in the face of numerous
people, including Rod, saying it's erroneous. I suggest that you
simply quote what Rod said. Surely it can stand on its own, given that
you're so sure of its meaning.
Is this your PLONK?
cheers
Steve
ALMA ENGELS
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
More power to you Jerry, if you can manage this. I think you can put some
items into a suspense file for a while. But that can backfire. Also I
think you need to decide just what is the Baha'i Faith. I think it includes
the Haifan Community but beyond that I think it includes all who follow
Baha'u'llah for he said all who believe in him are on the Crimson Ark with
him.
Alma
ALMA ENGELS
from Susan. Not her style. At least not her style since she did the 180
turnaround in stated positions some years ago. At the time I asked her what
happened and she replied in a l-o-n-g email explaining what a difficult time
she had had in her personal life where she had lost one job and was seeking
another and as it intersected with her Baha'i life where she had applied for
a paying position and another was chosen to fill it. It ended with her
falling into her mentor's arms in tears and things turned around. When I
stated that I had had a very different experience with the AO she replied
that I needed a mentor -- NEEDED A MENTOR! And this in the religion where
Baha'u'llah had forbidden a priesthood or the kissing of rings. I was so
disgusted that I never replied.
Alma
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fa6...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
ALMA ENGELS
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
Thanks for a lucid reply. To address a few points. Fred is Fred and had a
bad experience with the Administrative Order. While I did not like his
constant reposting, he did some valuable collecting and those files are on
his web site.
Robert was a Baha'i and is now bitter about the Faith. I am not sure why he
left it. I tend to ignore his posts and let others answer him. As for
correcting his opinion -- Robert has been posting for a long time and he
doesn't seem to change in his opinion. Others debate with him on factual
matters and I think they are more believable than he is.
Rod has a point. The Administrative Order is not interested in Justice at
the moment. He had at least one experience of that. I had another. And as
Karen stated, there are hundreds of other stories of unjust actions by the
Administrative Order. Only very rarely does the AO acknowledge this much
less correct it. I do know of one well-known time when it did. But it took
many letters/emails to Haifa from very prominent Baha'is to effect this. In
the US at the moment, the school system is more responsive to complaints,
etc., than the Haifan Administrative Order and from what I have read from
other Baha'is and former Baha'is online, this is a problem world-wide. The
effects of this can be seen, I think, in the fact that the Baha'i Faith is
stagnant -- not growing and possibly declining.
Personalities -- I am me and Rod is Rod, etc., I rarely use sarcasm. He
does as do others. But they didn't do this until after you ignored their
points. I think you would rather that their points were invalid. I would
too. But I have found that there is a lot of truth to them and it doesn't
help to cover them up. Sooner or later they are uncovered and a scandal to
those who don't believe in Baha'u'llah.
I would suggest to you that you do more reading now and less writing. Take
a look at what is on Fred's site. There are some powerful stories there.
Take a look at Juan Cole's web site. Juan was the fair-haired Baha'i in the
very early 1990's late 1980's. He is demonized now by the AO. But what he
has to say is important. He is probably the most knowledgable scholar of
the mid-East in the times of Baha'u'llah and is recognized as this. His web
site has a tremondous amount of Baha'i info including a lot of translations
(some of which can also be found on Jonah Winter's site, I am told). Read
some of these. If you do you may discover that there are a lot of seeming
contradictions within the writings (in translation) of the words of
Baha'u'llah. The example of the importance of unity and justice is one.
Which is more important? Which comes first? Think these through for
yourself. Baha'u'llah never authorized one way of looking at his Faith.
Baha'i is intended to be an orthopraxic and not an orthodox religion.
Well a lot of words.
In peace,
Alma
Jerry Joplin
> You're still insisting on this interpretation, in the face of numerous
> people, including Rod, saying it's erroneous. I suggest that you
> simply quote what Rod said. Surely it can stand on its own, given that
> you're so sure of its meaning.
>
> Is this your PLONK?
Okay, I'll repost the quote. I've seen Rod and others (et tu Stevus?)
say my interpretation is erroneous, but nobody has grammatically shown
me that my interpretation is false. In fact, I'm the only person
attempting a grammatical parse of the sentence, which of course, drew
ridicule. But I guess it goes with the territory here, so here it is again:
Rod:
> The Primary School in its culture-awareness-policies-proceedures is
> (even as a secular environment) far and away a more 'spiritual',
> protective and 'just' environment than the Baha'i community.
Simple grammar questions,
Subject?
Verb?
Predicate?
Also, here's the jargon dictionary entry for PLONK :-) When I use the
term, its the sound of someone landing in the killfile.
plonk excl.,vt. [Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang
`plonk' for cheap booze, or `plonker' for someone behaving stupidly
(latter is lit. equivalent to Yiddish `schmuck')] The sound a newbie
makes as he falls to the bottom of a kill file. While it originated in
the newsgroup talk.bizarre, this term (usually written "*plonk*") is now
(1994) widespread on Usenet as a form of public ridicule.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> More power to you Jerry, if you can manage this. I think you can put some
> items into a suspense file for a while. But that can backfire. Also I
> think you need to decide just what is the Baha'i Faith. I think it includes
> the Haifan Community but beyond that I think it includes all who follow
> Baha'u'llah for he said all who believe in him are on the Crimson Ark with
> him.
Actually, I think this type of belief is the norm among most religions.
Its really only when the sola Protestants came along (long after
Martin Luther) did everyone get to have their own interpretation without
regards to how it affected the community as a whole.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>happened and she replied in a l-o-n-g email explaining what a difficult time
>she had had in her personal life where she had lost one job and was seeking
>another and as it intersected with her Baha'i life where she had applied for
>a paying position and another was chosen to fill it. It ended with her
>falling into her mentor's arms in tears and things turned around.
That is about as egregious a misrepresentation of what I told you as the lies
you just told Jerry about what Shoghi Effendi said. I challenge you to post
that letter and prove that I wrote you any such thing. What I told you about my
history, I have told others as well. And it is easily accessible on the
internet for anyone who cares to look. You have twisted in well beyond
recognition. But given the fact you are willing to do this with Shoghi
Effendi's writings (all the while claiming to be a Baha'i) I shouldn't be
suprised to see you do it with my private correspondence which I'll bet you a
dime to a dollar you can't produce!
>
>> LOL! "relatively speaking"!!!??? Relative to what/who? Errol?
Relative to you Rod!
Jerry Joplin
> Thanks for a lucid reply. To address a few points. Fred is Fred and had a
> bad experience with the Administrative Order. While I did not like his
> constant reposting, he did some valuable collecting and those files are on
> his web site.
Oh dear, if you think Fred's writings comprise a valuable collection,
then I think we're going to disagree on a LOT of things. Oh well, such
is the nature of TRB.
> Personalities -- I am me and Rod is Rod, etc., I rarely use sarcasm. He
> does as do others. But they didn't do this until after you ignored their
> points. I think you would rather that their points were invalid. I would
> too. But I have found that there is a lot of truth to them and it doesn't
> help to cover them up. Sooner or later they are uncovered and a scandal to
> those who don't believe in Baha'u'llah.
So its okay to ridicule someone once you believe they've ignored your
points? Well, then I should have free reign to ridicule Rod or anybody
else too, right? Fair is fair. So what makes you choose sides here?
Everyone has a free right to ridicule each other. So, stop ridiculing
me for ridiculing others, and I think we'll all get along just fine.
Otherwise let the ridicule fest continue.
> I would suggest to you that you do more reading now and less writing. Take
> a look at what is on Fred's site. There are some powerful stories there.
> Take a look at Juan Cole's web site. Juan was the fair-haired Baha'i in the
> very early 1990's late 1980's. He is demonized now by the AO. But what he
> has to say is important. He is probably the most knowledgable scholar of
> the mid-East in the times of Baha'u'llah and is recognized as this. His web
> site has a tremondous amount of Baha'i info including a lot of translations
> (some of which can also be found on Jonah Winter's site, I am told). Read
> some of these. If you do you may discover that there are a lot of seeming
> contradictions within the writings (in translation) of the words of
> Baha'u'llah. The example of the importance of unity and justice is one.
> Which is more important? Which comes first? Think these through for
> yourself. Baha'u'llah never authorized one way of looking at his Faith.
> Baha'i is intended to be an orthopraxic and not an orthodox religion.
Been there, done that. Fred's, Juan's, Karen's, also you forgot Eric's,
and don't forget Susan's site which helps to bring perspective to this.
Which brings up an interesting point, the only web sites you recommend
I read are all dissident sites. Where's the balance Alma? Naturally,
if those are the only sites I read, I would get a warped opinion of the
Baha'i Faith.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>less correct it. I do know of one well-known time when it did. But it took
>many letters/emails to Haifa from very prominent Baha'is to effect this.
I presume you are speaking of the case where I intervened. But I'm hardly a
'prominent Baha'i. And the only reason that lots of letter were sent to the
World Centre is because I had collected a lot of evidence which could exonerate
this Baha'i. If other Baha'is handled these things appropriately, they would
likely have similiar results.
>The example of the importance of unity and justice is one.
>Which is more important?
Baha'u'llah says, "The purpose of justice is the appearance of unity."
Susan Maneck
>bearing false witness.
It looks to me like whoever this person was had good reason to think you were
challenging the Covenant. And it isn't because you don't think amoebas could be
Manifestations. What most Baha'is would find covenentally problematic is your
oppositon to the decisions of the House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi's
interpretations . A Baha'i bringing this kind of thing to the attention of
their Auxiliary Board Member would certainly *not* be bearing false witness. If
your ABM saw these things differently, they are entitled to their opinion as
well.
And btw, if you are imagining the person who took this thing to the ABM was
me, you are wrong. I did not take any matters involving the internet to my ABM
all the time I was living in Florida. She's a very nice person, but when it
came to matters related to the internet she was clueless.
Susan Maneck
>bad experience with the Administrative Order.
As far as I can tell Fred's 'bad' experiences of the Administrative Order came
only when he began to attack it on the internet. I've seen nothing in anything
he has written to indicate they ever did anything to him before that.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> > > Oh well, at least I am better of than you who
> > > has inferred Karen has a big fat ass.
> >
> > I inferred no such thing!
>
> Fibber!
Prove that!
> > 'Twas you who brought Karen's ass and the size
> > thereof into the conversation.
>
> Clear inference from your prior post and application of Jerrys 'Reductio
> adnausium
> absurdium'
You did the inferring!
> > I never talk about them mainly because just about everybody has got a
> bigger ass than me.
> > Yup! All the women in my life
> > continually judge my ass as being deficient or even non-existent.
>
> Oh yea, that's right, go on....play the Mick Jagger hips card!
> "My buns is so tight they be non-existent"......Ha!
>
> "*All* the women" in your life?
> Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Jealous???
>
>
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> ALMA ENGELS wrote:
> > You are right. It is a free forum. And a Baha'i free forum. You are a
> > Baha'i albeit a new one. One would suppose that you would want to
present a
> > positive image of Baha'i, especially for the lurkers who are not
Baha'is.
Baha'i is
> > semi-lurker and a BIGS.
>
> That is an easy observation from up there in the peanut gallery. Why
> don't you first try countering some of the slanderish statements made
> about the Faith on this forum, and then see how you will become the
> object of a continous stream of invectives? Perhaps I don't deal with
> them very effectively, but at least I'm trying.
Janis dear, "slander" is the spoken form. If it's in writing it becomes
"libel."
>
> Jerry
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Naturally,
> if those are the only sites I read, I would get a warped opinion of the
> Baha'i Faith.
I think you already have a warped view probably because you dismiss valid
criticism so easily.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Rod wrote:
> > Don't get excited Paul....I'm under "PLONK" killfile number two
> > and he is still having "fun" with lies, misrepresentation and rant
> > in my direction.
> >
> > Susan killfiles and attempts to talk to you through others.
> > Jerry killfiles and just keeps on dribbling.
>
> Actually Rod, your haven't gone into the killfile this time. Do you
> want me to plonk you? I would be glad too, however last time you kept
> begging people to reply to your posts so we would see it.
Janis dear, you're becoming a real plonker!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03110...@posting.google.com...
> Jerry Joplin <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> > Paul Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > No, I will not lighten up.
> >
> > Ka-PLONK...
> >
> >
>
> What a wanker!
Hairy hands! A stage nine, I'll warrant! Off to St Clabbert's with him!
Can somebody disinfect the chair?
>
> Paul
ALMA ENGELS
Alma
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
ALMA ENGELS
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
belief is the mark of a cult.
Alma