Response to a Fanatic
Frederick Glaysher
(FORGIVE THE CAPS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DISTINGUISH
MY REMARK FROM OTHERS)
I'VE DECIDED TO POST A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IT SEEMS
TO ME TO TYPIFY THE GROSS FANATICISM AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
SO MANY BAHAIS.... THIS MENTALITY, I BELIEVE, UNDERLIES MUCH
OF THE OPPOSITION TO TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI OVER THE LAST WEEKS.
NO HONEST MEMBER OF THE BAHAI FAITH CAN FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE
TACTIC OF INTIMIDATION USED BY SOME FANATICS TO SILENCE ANYONE
WHO MIGHT DARE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OTHER THAN THE
CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED ONE. AS A BAHAI, FOR MORE THAN 20
YEARS, THIS TENDENCY CONCERNS ME DEEPLY. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR
ME NOT TO SEE IT AS THE SAME LYING, DISTORTING, AND COERCIVE
METHODS USED BY EXTREMISTS IN ALL CULTS AND PSEUDO-RELIGIONS.
I BELIEVE THE MODERATORS OF SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI HAVE USED
THESE SAME METHODS IN MANIPULATING, THROUGH OTHERS, THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI....
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S JUSTIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE BAHAI
WRITINGS....
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:55:19 -0500
From: Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Response to a Jesuit
I am replying privately because I feel it's most appropriate. You do
NOT have my permission to post this to Usenet or any other forum.
THE REASON I HAVE IS GIVEN ABOVE.
In my opinion, this note of yours contained some implied criticism of
the Institutions and could be construed as undermining their authority.
Specifically, this quote:
>This ignores the fact that many Bahais don't accept review and believe
>it's censorship....
WHAT RREINI IS INTIMATING HERE, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T PERCEIVE IT, IS
THAT I'M A MISCREANT, INFIDEL, ETC....
If this was not your intent, then you might want to rephrase the concept
you're trying to get across so that it's clear you're not trying to
undermine the Institutions. On the other hand, if that was your intent,
then that's something I prefer not to think about.
HERE IT IS AGAIN.... THE RED FLAG OF ACCUSATION, OF THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS,
USED TO SILENCE AND TERRORIZE OTHERS, TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL....
ENDING WITH HIS WRAPPING HIMSELF IN THE MANTLE OF PIETY AND PURITY
OF MOTIVE....
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
THIS HAS BEEN THE APPROACH OF OTHERS DURING THIS DISCUSSION PERIOD.
IS THIS THE KIND OF KINGDOM OF GOD WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE ON EARTH?
THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION WORLDWIDE? IT SEEMS LIKE IT AT TIMES....
FOR OTHER EXAMPLES OF IT, ONE MIGHT LOOK BACK AT THE POSTING BY
DR. STEVE BURGESS WHO AFTER MAKING HIS SHAMELESS INTIMATIONS FAILED
TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO REPLY TO ME, WHEN I CONFRONTED HIM, IN PUBLIC,
WITH HIS CONTEMPTIBLE INSINUATION....
I PRESENT ALL THIS AS EVIDENCE, TO FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE, THAT
AN UNCONTROLLED, UNMANIPULATED, UNCENSORED TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI IS
WOEFULLY NEEDED TO ENSURE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE
GOD HIMSELF HAS BLESSED HUMANKIND WITH.... THERE ARE TOO MANY
SELF-RIGHTEOUS FANATICS IN THE BAHAI FAITH FOR IT NOT TO EXIST....
FREDERICK GLAYSHER
ROCHESTER HILLS, MICHIGAN USA
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Roger Reini
Please note that Mr. Glaysher violated my trust and posted a private
communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I
expressed forbade him from doing so. Quoting from my original note:
> I am replying privately because I feel it's most appropriate. You do
> NOT have my permission to post this to Usenet or any other forum.
Nevertheless, he goes ahead and does so.
I will not respond to his comments in public. That means I can't really
respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Roger Reini
Steven Garman wrote:
>
> Sat, 01 Mar 1997, Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> bawwwwwled like a baby:
> /Please note that Mr. Glaysher violated my trust and posted a private
> /communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I expressed
> /forbade him from doing so.
>
> In other words: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"
>
> Somebody should wipe your snotty nose, little boy.
I can wipe my nose just fine, thank you.
> /I will not respond to his comments in public. That means I can't really
> /respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
>
> Yes, this DOES avoid dealing with the topic to being with ... which was
> your aim.
The topic is a private matter between Mr. Glaysher and myself. It
should remain that way, as it concerns nobody else. Why waste bandwidth
on something that's of no interest to anyone else?
> I call you coward. Answer Mr Glaysher in the public forum, if you have the
> balls of a man.
Call me what you like. But I will not take that discussion public.
>The Attack Dog of Usenet
Is your license up to date? <g>
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Steven Garman
Sat, 01 Mar 1997, Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> bawwwwwled like a baby:
/Please note that Mr. Glaysher violated my trust and posted a private
/communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I expressed
/forbade him from doing so.
In other words: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"
Somebody should wipe your snotty nose, little boy.
If you can't stand your words being shown in public, you shouldn't write.
If you are ashamed by your words, again, you shouldn't write.
/Quoting from my original note:
/
/>I am replying privately because I feel it's most appropriate. You do
/>NOT have my permission to post this to Usenet or any other forum.
/
/Nevertheless, he goes ahead and does so.
Poor boy. Perhaps you should just kill him. He won't post your words
again after that, for sure!
/I will not respond to his comments in public. That means I can't really
/respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
Yes, this DOES avoid dealing with the topic to being with ... which was
your aim.
You don't fool us. You are intentionally avoiding dealing with the topic.
I call you coward. Answer Mr Glaysher in the public forum, if you have the
balls of a man.
--
The Attack Dog of Usenet
(Bark and Bite Are Equally Severe)
eug...@marsweb.com
In article <8572148...@dejanews.com>,
Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (FORGIVE THE CAPS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DISTINGUISH
> MY REMARK FROM OTHERS)
>
> I'VE DECIDED TO POST A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IT SEEMS
> TO ME TO TYPIFY THE GROSS FANATICISM AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
> SO MANY BAHAIS.... THIS MENTALITY, I BELIEVE, UNDERLIES MUCH
> OF THE OPPOSITION TO TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI OVER THE LAST WEEKS.
> NO HONEST MEMBER OF THE BAHAI FAITH CAN FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE
> TACTIC OF INTIMIDATION USED BY SOME FANATICS TO SILENCE ANYONE
> WHO MIGHT DARE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OTHER THAN THE
> CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED ONE. AS A BAHAI, FOR MORE THAN 20
> YEARS, THIS TENDENCY CONCERNS ME DEEPLY. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR
> ME NOT TO SEE IT AS THE SAME LYING, DISTORTING, AND COERCIVE
> METHODS USED BY EXTREMISTS IN ALL CULTS AND PSEUDO-RELIGIONS.
> I BELIEVE THE MODERATORS OF SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI HAVE USED
> THESE SAME METHODS IN MANIPULATING, THROUGH OTHERS, THE
> DISCUSSION ABOUT TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI....
>
> I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S JUSTIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE BAHAI
> WRITINGS....
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:55:19 -0500
> From: Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com>
> To: Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Response to a Jesuit
>
>
From what I have read of the several posts on this you have my vote for
creating talk.religion.bahai. The first step to tranny and slavery is
censorship. What are they afraid of? Open discussion about the truth?
What is going on here?
Get it up. I want to see talk.religiion.bahai established so those people
can have an open form for their concerns. I will help as well as
participate in it to see that freedom of speech continues here in
cyberspace in good ol US of A.
Frederick Glaysher
AAAhhhhh, I "violated" your trust.... You should be able to
accuse anyone of anything you like, and no one else should know....
All fascists and oppressors like to hide in the dark where others
can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
"private" email to me and this response.
In article <33182A...@wwnet.com>,
rre...@wwnet.com wrote:
>
> Please note that Mr. Glaysher violated my trust and posted a private
> communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I
> expressed forbade him from doing so. Quoting from my original note:
>
> > I am replying privately because I feel it's most appropriate. You do
> > NOT have my permission to post this to Usenet or any other forum.
>
> Nevertheless, he goes ahead and does so.
>
> I will not respond to his comments in public. That means I can't really
> respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
>
> Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Wrapping himself again in the mantle of piety and purity.... Hitler
did that before and while he was murdering Jews in private, if I'm
not mistaken.... He didn't want the rest of the world to know either.
Frederick Glaysher
Rochester Hills, Michigan USA
Frederick Glaysher
In article <331A3A...@wwnet.com>,
rre...@wwnet.com wrote:
>
> Steven Garman wrote:
> >
> > Sat, 01 Mar 1997, Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> bawwwwwled like a baby:
> > /communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I expressed
> > /forbade him from doing so.
> >
> > In other words: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"
> >
> > Somebody should wipe your snotty nose, little boy.
>
>
> > /respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
> >
> > Yes, this DOES avoid dealing with the topic to being with ... which was
> > your aim.
>
> should remain that way, as it concerns nobody else. Why waste bandwidth
> on something that's of no interest to anyone else?
I don't consider it a "private matter." I definitely consider it a
public one. It typifies the self-righteousness of many Bahais, such
as the moderators of soc.religion.bahai..... Mr. Reini's attempt at
concealing his tactics of smear and intimidation is exactly what
religious fanatics in all cults have always done, e.g., Jim Jones,
the Kool-Ade King; Aum Shinryku (sp?) of Japanese sarin gas attack
infamy; Bhagwanshuresh (sp?), Waco wackos, etc....
It is because of Bahais like Mr. Reini that I believe a forum,
talk.religion.bahai, should exist so that no one can manipulate
and control discussion to their own advantage.... I have nothing
to hide. Clearly, if you read the words above again, Mr. Reini
does. It's interesting to think back about his many postings on
talk.religion.bahai over the last four weeks or so in the light
of these revelations....
>
> > I call you coward. Answer Mr Glaysher in the public forum, if you have the
> > balls of a man.
>
> Call me what you like. But I will not take that discussion public.
>
> >The Attack Dog of Usenet
>
> Is your license up to date? <g>
Otherwise, he'll have you halled into the pound and gassed to death....
>
> Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Roger Reini
eug...@marsweb.com wrote:
> From what I have read of the several posts on this you have my vote for
> creating talk.religion.bahai. The first step to tranny and slavery is
> censorship. What are they afraid of? Open discussion about the truth?
> What is going on here?
I don't know what you have read on this topic for the last few weeks.
IMHO, a few issues are being confused here.
First, there's the call for a new group, talk.religion.bahai. A good
case can be made for it; an equally good case can be made against it. I
won't rehash the details. Personally, I don't feel that the case for it
is particularly strong at this time. That could change in the future.
The second issue is accusations of censorship on the existing
soc.religion.bahai. These accusations are based on posts being rejected
by the moderators. Several of those posts have been posted here.
IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content. Suitably
rephrased, I would imagine that they would be allowed. There may be a
short cooling off period, but one's that's passed, I would see no
difficulty with revised postings being accepted. If the poster were
unwilling to revise them, then that would be a different matter.
> Get it up. I want to see talk.religiion.bahai established so those people
> can have an open form for their concerns. I will help as well as
> participate in it to see that freedom of speech continues here in
> cyberspace in good ol US of A.
IMHO, I think the discussion is being driven more by personal grudges
than anything. That's not a rational basis for discussion. Perhaps we
should all take a break and cool off.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Steven Garman
For some reason, Mr Reini's article <331A3A...@wwnet.com> in reply to
mine is not on my server. Hmm. Instead of checking the control group for
an incriminating cancel message, I'll just followup at this later article,
in which Mr Glaysher repsonds to Mr Reini.
Mon, 03 Mar 1997, Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
/rre...@wwnet.com wrote:
/>Steven Garman wrote:
/>>Sat, 01 Mar 1997, Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> bawwwwwled like a baby:
/>>/Please note that Mr. Glaysher violated my trust and posted a private
/>>/communication from me to him without my permission. In fact, I expressed
/>>/forbade him from doing so.
/>>
/>>In other words: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"
/>>Somebody should wipe your snotty nose, little boy.
/>
/>I can wipe my nose just fine, thank you.
Please attend to it promptly. Then we can work on your other manners.
/>>/I will not respond to his comments in public. That means I can't really
/>>/respond in private, either, for my private comments will be made public.
/>>
/>>Yes, this DOES avoid dealing with the topic to being with ... which was
/>>your aim.
/>
/>The topic is a private matter between Mr. Glaysher and myself.
Not anymore. Furthermore, since you have said that you won't talk to him
about it anymore via private or public fora, then it looks like you intend
for it to be a private matter between nobody. Nothing gets said in that
situation, which probably suits you just fine. We think otherwise.
/>It should remain that way,
Nope.
/>as it concerns nobody else.
Obviously it concerns me now, doesn't it?
/>Why waste bandwidth on something that's of no interest to anyone else?
/
/I don't consider it a "private matter." I definitely consider it a public
/one. It typifies the self-righteousness of many Bahais, such as the
/moderators of soc.religion.bahai..... Mr. Reini's attempt at concealing
/his tactics of smear and intimidation is exactly what religious fanatics
/in all cults have always done, e.g., Jim Jones, the Kool-Ade King; Aum
/Shinryku (sp?) of Japanese sarin gas attack infamy; Bhagwanshuresh (sp?),
/Waco wackos, etc....
/
/It is because of Bahais like Mr. Reini that I believe a forum,
/talk.religion.bahai, should exist so that no one can manipulate and control
/discussion to their own advantage.... I have nothing to hide. Clearly, if
/you read the words above again, Mr. Reini does. It's interesting to think
/back about his many postings on talk.religion.bahai over the last four
/weeks or so in the light of these revelations....
/
/>>I call you coward. Answer Mr Glaysher in the public forum, if you have
/>>the balls of a man.
/>
/>Call me what you like. But I will not take that discussion public.
Yep, it is as I suspected: _N_O___B_A_L_L_S_
/>>The Attack Dog of Usenet
/>
/>Is your license up to date? <g>
/
/Otherwise, he'll have you halled into the pound and gassed to death....
I'm not licensed since that will involve being inspected for rabies, and
I don't want that. In a world that is a mass of overly-medicated mongrels
-- sleepy dogs who do tricks for their masters upon command, and take
to the chain with alacrity -- then some frothing at the mouth suits me just
fine. I can face one of these sleepy and accepting mongrels, but I can't
make them think. The masters back away, muttering "nice doggy" while
looking for a stick. This is how the world really is -- the sleepy masses
accepting their choke-collars, and the masters relying upon violence to
assert control -- and the dissident just brings it out in public for every-
one to see.
Then we can see where you stand. Is that a stick in your hand?
--
Steven Garman <Suga...@world.std.com>
Remove the x in my address or your REPLY will BOUNCE back to YOU.
The Attack Dog of Usenet - needs a sign on a fence or something
Roger Reini
I did cancel the article and hereby retract it. I posted it in haste
without proper judgment. To those who were offended, I apologize.
I shall not engage in further comment on it.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Bruce Baugh
>All fascists and oppressors like to hide in the dark where others
>can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
>"private" email to me and this response.
You know, you could save us all some time and effort if you'd not bother with
the extended screeds and just hold up a sign proclaiming "I am an idiot! Vote
against my proposal, because I don't have a clue!"
*plonk*
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Frederick Glaysher
In article <331AF9...@wwnet.com>,
Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> wrote:
>
> eug...@marsweb.com wrote:
>
> > From what I have read of the several posts on this you have my vote for
> > creating talk.religion.bahai. The first step to tranny and slavery is
> > censorship. What are they afraid of? Open discussion about the truth?
> > What is going on here?
>
[clip]
> IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
> that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
> and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
> name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
> sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
> of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content.
False. The "moderators" suppressed content on the excuse of "tone."
There over 20 censored messages posted to news.groups....not only
several.... I would characterize soc.religion.bahai as an oppressive
concentration camp of smug, self-righteous Jesuits or ayatollahs....
Suitably
> rephrased, I would imagine that they would be allowed.
To suite the taste of hitlerites, nannies, old biddies, and
pollyannas....
There may be a
> short cooling off period, but one's that's passed, I would see no
> difficulty with revised postings being accepted.
Let me give you an example of "offensive language" for which I
was banned: "Utterly naive." It's the surrounding content of
that message that the censors were after....
If the poster were
> unwilling to revise them, then that would be a different matter.
Absolutely unwilling then and now.... WHO ARE THEY? for the
six thousandth time, I ask....
>
> > Get it up. I want to see talk.religiion.bahai established so those people
> > can have an open form for their concerns. I will help as well as
> > participate in it to see that freedom of speech continues here in
> > cyberspace in good ol US of A.
>
> IMHO, I think the discussion is being driven more by personal grudges
> than anything.
The personal grudge here of Mr. Reini is quite apparent to anyone
who has read his many messages opposing decent freedom of religious
conscience to others.....
That's not a rational basis for discussion. Perhaps we
> should all take a break and cool off.
Pretending to be the essence of rationality here doesn't cut it
either.... Your biases were clear in the content posted in
Response to a Fanatic....
>
> Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Your real motive here, Mr. Reini, is you can't take someone
actually supporting the notion of talk.religion.bahai, and so you
just have to jump in and persuade him otherwise....
Bruce Baugh
In article <E6I0o...@pwa.acusd.edu>, jlow...@acusd.edu (John Lowther) wrote:
> Perhaps Bruce should hold up a sign -- "Hi. I'm biased."
Not that I ever claimed to be objective. :-)
Emma Pease
>AAAhhhhh, I "violated" your trust.... You should be able to
>accuse anyone of anything you like, and no one else should know....
>All fascists and oppressors like to hide in the dark where others
>can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
>"private" email to me and this response.
Net etiquette frowns upon posting private email without the consent of
the sender just as regular etiquette frowns upon printing letters
meant to be private in the local newspaper without the consent of the
writer. In this case the sender explicitly refused you permission to
repost, but you did so anyway.
It would have been acceptable for you to paraphrase the letter and
publically (and politely) ask him for permission to post the full text
thereby putting the onus on him, but instead you violated etiquette
and marked yourself as someone who cannot be expected to behave
according to the norms of civilized society (or even the uncivilized
society of usenet).
talk.religion.bahai may be justified (and I know one person not
participating in this discussion who leans towards that view), but
some of your actions are more damaging to your cause than helpful.
Emma Pease
neutral on whether t.r.b should be created
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Lynn Diana Gazis
John Lowther (jlow...@acusd.edu) wrote:
: Perhaps Bruce should hold up a sign -- "Hi. I'm biased."
I hadn't any position, prior to all these threads, on the desirability of
an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai. But I'd have to say, when it comes
to posting private email, I'm biased as well. And see no reason to be
ashamed of that bias. Particularly when an apparently reasonable private
email with a politely made, explicit request not to post it is
deliberately posted accompanied by an odd screed about fascism.
Lynn Gazis-Sax
Frederick Glaysher
In article <5ff95m$ng_...@news.zippo.com>,
br...@nospamhere.kenosis.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>
> In article <8573934...@dejanews.com>, Frederick Glaysher
<fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
> >"private" email to me and this response.
>
> the extended screeds and just hold up a sign proclaiming "I am an idiot! Vote
> against my proposal, because I don't have a clue!"
You're entitled to your opinion, though I don't share it. I won't
even attempt to get you banned for it. Imagine that.
>
> *plonk*
>
> --
> Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
> Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
> List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
> Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Frederick Glaysher
Graham Sorenson
In article <8574293...@dejanews.com>, Frederick Glaysher
<fgla...@hotmail.com> writes
>> IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
>> that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
>> and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
>> name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
>> sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
>> of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content.
>
>False. The "moderators" suppressed content on the excuse of "tone."
>There over 20 censored messages posted to news.groups....not only
>several.... I would characterize soc.religion.bahai as an oppressive
>concentration camp of smug, self-righteous Jesuits or ayatollahs....
See! Exactly! Why Your posts were sent back to you on SRB You resort to
name calling.
It is not False that your messages to srb were returned to you on srb
as being censored.. If they were to be censored then they would not have
been sent back with a request to change some of the inflamatory name
calling or other aspects of the "tone" of your messages...
--
Graham Sorenson
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk
Roger Reini
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> wrote:
> > IMHO, I think the discussion is being driven more by personal grudges
> > than anything.
>
> The personal grudge here of Mr. Reini is quite apparent to anyone
> who has read his many messages opposing decent freedom of religious
> conscience to others.....
I bear no personal grudges against any participant in this discussion.
And I try not to bear them against anybody else. Neither do I oppose
freedom of religious conscience. As one who believes in the independent
investigation of truth, how can I oppose it?
True, I have spoken against the proposed talk.religion.bahai, but not on
the basis of restricting religious freedom. I won't repeat my positions
here; a Deja News search can find them easily enough.
> That's not a rational basis for discussion. Perhaps we
> > should all take a break and cool off.
>
> Pretending to be the essence of rationality here doesn't cut it
> either.... Your biases were clear in the content posted in
> Response to a Fanatic....
I don't claim to be the "essence of rationality" -- that title is
reserved for God and His Manifestations. We should emulate their
example and not be swayed by self and passion.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Dick Wisan
In article <8574293...@dejanews.com>, fgla...@hotmail.com says... [snip]
>> IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
>> that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
>> and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
>> name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
>> sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
>> of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content.
>
>False. The "moderators" suppressed content on the excuse of "tone."
>There over 20 censored messages posted to news.groups....not only
>several.... I would characterize soc.religion.bahai as an oppressive
>concentration camp of smug, self-righteous Jesuits or ayatollahs....
>
>
>To suite the taste of hitlerites, nannies, old biddies, and
>pollyannas....
Well, there it is. I know nothing of the previous postings in this
thread, but that certainly looks like you've proved his point.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@norwich.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Frederick Glaysher
In article <emma.85...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU>,
em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
>
> In <8573934...@dejanews.com> Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>
> >AAAhhhhh, I "violated" your trust.... You should be able to
> >accuse anyone of anything you like, and no one else should know....
>
> >can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
> >"private" email to me and this response.
>
> the sender just as regular etiquette frowns upon printing letters
> meant to be private in the local newspaper without the consent of the
> writer. In this case the sender explicitly refused you permission to
> repost, but you did so anyway.
The issue concerns more than "etiquette." Are you a Bahai? Do you
understand what in "private" Mr. Reini accused me of? Can you see
how that is tantamount to an attempt to silence me through
intimidation and fear? What you are talking about are niceties of
discourse that Mr. Reini himself, in my opinion, violated when he
"privately" suggested I was covenant breaker or something and did
not have the honesty to come out and say so in public where everyone
could see what really makes him tick, if you will..... fanaticism.
>
> It would have been acceptable for you to paraphrase the letter and
> publically (and politely) ask him for permission to post the full text
> thereby putting the onus on him, but instead you violated etiquette
> and marked yourself as someone who cannot be expected to behave
> according to the norms of civilized society (or even the uncivilized
> society of usenet).
It's all right for Mr. Reini to abuse the norms of civilized society
(come on, isn't that going too far!), but don't point it out to
anyone else.... Allow terror, intimidation, smear, two-faced piety,
as long as it's all done for the right cause....
>
> talk.religion.bahai may be justified (and I know one person not
> participating in this discussion who leans towards that view), but
> some of your actions are more damaging to your cause than helpful.
I'm not a saint.... I don't pretend to be one.... I'm not the
essence of depravity either.... though some may feel otherwise....
Here's something to consider: given the stultifying, censored
nature of discussion and conscience in the Bahai Faith, it could
not have been any other way.... This is how it has seemed to me
all along.... Think about it....
Oh, we human beings, how do we manage to go on?
>
> Emma Pease
> neutral on whether t.r.b should be created
> --
> \----
> |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
> |_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Frederick Glaysher
Frederick Glaysher
In article <gazissaxE...@netcom.com>,
May I suggested you go back and read the "apparently reasonable" email.
There's more involved in it than the request not to post. WHY would
there be a request not to post? Ask yourself that question as you
reread it. WHY would Mr. Reini want to hide, conceal, keep in the
dark, out of public view, the suggestion that I'm attacking the Bahai
institutions? How would that play to, apparently, his advantage in
opposing talk.religion.bahai? You need to understand and know
something about some people in the Bahai Faith in order to fully
perceive what Mr. Reini is doing in that message. Face value, a
polite request not to post, won't work....
I'd have to compare it to Hitler terrorizing
the Jews by sending them private notes that intimate they're against
the Aryan race to convey the real nature of Mr. Reini's "reasonable"
little email.... The Jews understood what Hitler was doing.... And
the possibility of egregious deeds to come.... He and others are
annoyed because I refuse to go to the gas ovens in silence....
>
> Lynn Gazis-Sax
Frederick Glaysher
In article <5fi3rf$g...@news.hartwick.edu>,
wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
> In article <8574293...@dejanews.com>, fgla...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >In article <331AF9...@wwnet.com>,
> > Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
> >> that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
> >> and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
> >> name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
> >> sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
> >> of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content.
> >
> >False. The "moderators" suppressed content on the excuse of "tone."
> >There over 20 censored messages posted to news.groups....not only
> >several.... I would characterize soc.religion.bahai as an oppressive
> >concentration camp of smug, self-righteous Jesuits or ayatollahs....
> >
> >>Suitably rephrased, I would imagine that they would be allowed.
> >
> >To suite the taste of hitlerites, nannies, old biddies, and
> >pollyannas....
>
> Well, there it is. I know nothing of the previous postings in this
> thread, but that certainly looks like you've proved his point.
The issue of whether talk.religion.bahai should or should not
exist is not over tone, though many have tried to make that the
issue. It's over whether an moderated, censored newsgroup
should have the alternative of an unmoderated, unmanipulated
one.... It's not whether you like my "tone" or not, it's
whether 100 people have enough interest in the valid issues
that have been raised these past weeks and vote yes. Those
who vote yes are not necessarily voting for ME.... I surely
don't conceive of it that way, and many surely won't either....
This is all old ground. The CFV (Call For Votes) should be
posted any day now.
>
> --
> R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@norwich.net
> - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
> - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Frederick Glaysher
Frederick Glaysher
In article <x7N4TZAg...@fragrant.demon.co.uk>,
Graham Sorenson <gra...@fragrant.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <8574293...@dejanews.com>, Frederick Glaysher
> <fgla...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> IMHO, the posts were rejected not so much on their content as on how
> >> that content was expressed. The discussions on s.r.b are of high caliber
> >> and can become vigorous. They are also free of personal attacks,
> >> name-calling, etc. -- a refreshing island of calm in the storm-tossed
> >> sea which is Usenet. IMHO, the rejected posts did not meet the standards
> >> of the newsgroup because of their tone, not their content.
> >
> >False. The "moderators" suppressed content on the excuse of "tone."
> >There over 20 censored messages posted to news.groups....not only
> >several.... I would characterize soc.religion.bahai as an oppressive
> >concentration camp of smug, self-righteous Jesuits or ayatollahs....
>
> See! Exactly! Why Your posts were sent back to you on SRB You resort to
> name calling.
>
Sorenson writes:
> It is not False that your messages to srb were returned to you on srb
> as being censored.. If they were to be censored then they would not have
> been sent back with a request to change some of the inflamatory name
> calling or other aspects of the "tone" of your messages...
Let's ignore Mr. Reini's coercive, threatening, clandestine email to
me? He clearly puts himself on the saintly side.... His intimating
I work for Satan is okay, standard Bahai practice....is it? If so,
then I rest my case again for the need for an undistorted medium of
communication to protect us all from the Mr. Reinis in the Bahai Faith
and elsewhere....
>
> --
> Graham Sorenson
> http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk
The CFV (Call For Votes) should be out any time now. Remember,
it's what Christopher Stone, the group-mentor, called on
soc.religion.bahai an "interest poll," not an election....
Roger Reini
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
> Let's ignore Mr. Reini's coercive, threatening, clandestine email to
> me? He clearly puts himself on the saintly side.... His intimating
> I work for Satan is okay, standard Bahai practice....is it? If so,
> then I rest my case again for the need for an undistorted medium of
> communication to protect us all from the Mr. Reinis in the Bahai Faith
> and elsewhere....
Some corrections are in order here:
1) I never intimated that Mr. Glaysher "work for Satan." I never used
the term "Satan" in any correspondence on this subject until now.
2) I never accused Mr. Glaysher of being a Covenant breaker. It is not
the place of any individual Baha'i to make such a serious charge. I
simply pointed out that a comment of his could be construed as
undermining the lawfully established Institutions of the Faith. I
suggested that he might want to rephrase the comment so that it is clear
that he is not advocating undermining the Institutions. To my
knowledge, he has not yet acted on my suggestion.
For the benefit of those readers who are not Baha'is, a Covenant breaker
is an individual who has accepted Baha'u'llah as the One sent by God in
this day (i.e., a Baha'i), but who rejects the authority of the lawfully
establshed Institutions of the Faith, who tries to usurp or undermine
the authority of the Institutions, or who tries to create a schism in
the Faith. The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, which all Baha'is agree to
uphold, calls upon the believers to accept and obey the Institutions
which Baha'u'llah and His chosen successors established to lead the
Faith. Breaking this Covenant is the only reason that a believer can be
expelled from the Faith, so it is a very serious matter.
This short note of explanation does not do the topic justice; if you are
interested in learning more about the Covenant, or about the Baha'i
Faith in general, feel free to visit soc.religion.bahai.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Emma Pease
In <8575607...@dejanews.com> Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> writes:
[in reply to a message by me]
>The issue concerns more than "etiquette." Are you a Bahai? Do you
>understand what in "private" Mr. Reini accused me of? Can you see
>how that is tantamount to an attempt to silence me through
>intimidation and fear?
I am not a Bahai so I am not fully aware of the impact his letter
might have on you. But you might want to reread the bit I wrote
below:
>> It would have been acceptable for you to paraphrase the letter and
>> publically (and politely) ask him for permission to post the full text
>> thereby putting the onus on him, but instead you violated etiquette
>> and marked yourself as someone who cannot be expected to behave
>> according to the norms of civilized society (or even the uncivilized
>> society of usenet).
Now let me rephrase in concrete terms. You could have posted somehing
like
Mr. Reini had accused me in private email of being a covenant
breaker, but, he has forbidden me from reposting it. I am now
publically asking him for permission to post his message to me so I
can answer it or to retract his accusation.
You still get your point across without violating net etiquette. If
Mr. Reini refuses permission to repost, he looks guilty (we aren't
bound by the fifth amendment here). If he does give you permission,
you can post and answer his message just as you did. Either way you
win.
>Here's something to consider: given the stultifying, censored
>nature of discussion and conscience in the Bahai Faith, it could
>not have been any other way.... This is how it has seemed to me
>all along.... Think about it....
I'm perfectly willing to let the vote go ahead, but, I do think you
might be wasting your time as you don't seem to have many supporters.
Note also that free ranging discussion can take place in
talk.religion.misc. As it stands I will 'abstain'. Now if the vote
goes ahead and you lose because a lot people voted against the group
on political grounds and you have about 140 or so yes votes, I will
vote 'yes' when the proposal is reintroduced.
Emma
ps. Sorry for any delay but the Stanford newsserver is suffering from
terrible lag.
Roger Reini
Emma Pease wrote:
>
> In <8575607...@dejanews.com> Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [in reply to a message by me]
>
> >The issue concerns more than "etiquette." Are you a Bahai? Do you
> >understand what in "private" Mr. Reini accused me of? Can you see
> >how that is tantamount to an attempt to silence me through
> >intimidation and fear?
>
> I am not a Bahai so I am not fully aware of the impact his letter
> might have on you.
As it turns out, you may want to check my article
<331E0B...@wwnet.com>, which may clarify a few things. The article
explains what a Covenant breaker is and why it's such a serious matter.
And no, I did not accuse Mr. Glaysher of being a Covenant breaker.
> I'm perfectly willing to let the vote go ahead, but, I do think you
> might be wasting your time as you don't seem to have many supporters.
I've seen the CFV in two locations, so it's going forward. Feel free to
vote your conscience -- and that goes to all of you out there.
I have cast my vote -- I voted ABSTAIN.
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Steven Garman
4 Mar 1997, em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
/Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> writes:
/>AAAhhhhh, I "violated" your trust.... You should be able to
/>accuse anyone of anything you like, and no one else should know....
/>All fascists and oppressors like to hide in the dark where others
/>can't see their contemptible deeds.... That's how I read your
/>"private" email to me and this response.
/
/Net etiquette frowns upon posting private email without the consent of the
/sender just as regular etiquette frowns upon printing letters meant to be
/private in the local newspaper without the consent of the writer. In this
/case the sender explicitly refused you permission to repost, but you did
/so anyway.
"Netiquette" and "regular etiquette" are the inventions of elitist White
people and they serve to squelch any data that could lead to strife. In
effect, it is just one of many methods of "manufacturing consent" [1] in a
supposedly free society. I don't respect that. *Data* is what I respect.
No manner of niceties should stand in the way of data.
/It would have been acceptable for you to paraphrase the letter and
/publically (and politely) ask him for permission to post the full text
/thereby putting the onus on him, but instead you violated etiquette and
/marked yourself as someone who cannot be expected to behave according to
/the norms of civilized society (or even the uncivilized society of usenet).
One "norm of civilized society" is in paying taxes to fund extensive human
murders by police, military and intelligence forces at home and abroad.
Given that, I don't have much care about ANY "civilized norms". Give me
the "uncivility" of the honest Usenet anytime. Here, it is hard to shut
people up.
/talk.religion.bahai may be justified (and I know one person not
/participating in this discussion who leans towards that view), but some of
/your actions are more damaging to your cause than helpful.
In true "civilized" form, you certainly didn't ask for my opinion on that.
In my opinion, if somebody makes a claim, then I want to see the exact data
that backs up that claim. Word for word. If it means posting someone's
e-mail, then so be it. Mr Glaysher has lost no face in my eyes.
I'm not ashamed about my private e-mail. How about you? Or is that just
your method, sweetie, of keeping control of the data that would oppose your
viewpoint?
Wake up.
--
Steven Garman <Suga...@world.std.com>
The Attack Dog of Usenet
Delete the x in my address or your REPLY will BOUNCE back to YOU.
[1] Bless you, Noam Chomsky! It's long past time that we showed Whitey
just how how tyrannical Whitey is, and then rubbed Whitey's tyrant
nose in it. :^)
Bruce Baugh
>No manner of niceties should stand in the way of data.
Please post all your bank account and credit card info, then.
Steven Garman
Sun, 09 Mar 1997, Bruce Baugh wrote:
/Sat, 08 Mar 1997, Steven Garman wrote:
/>No manner of niceties should stand in the way of data.
/
/Please post all your bank account and credit card info, then.
Pray, Sir, stick to the intent of the topic, instead of using a pointless
extremity. Due personal privacy that avoids personal harm has little to do
with arguing matters of philosophy on newsgroups. That is part of what I
meant by saying that niceties should not deny data. Any experience with the
real world will show you that "manners" is often just a tool used to control
information for the purposes of tyranny ... and information control like
that is what everyone *claims* to be against. Right?
My personal financial data is not for public consumption since I could be
damaged with it, not to mention the CC company, etc. My personal opinions
and philosophies, however, are for public consumption ... especially when
they have to do with the public topics being discussed.
I cannot blame people who post my words from my e-mail, if they are germaine
to the public topics being discussed; and similarly I post other people's
words from private e-mail for the same reasons.
Again, I am not ashamed of my words, public or private. How about you?
--
Steven Garman <Suga...@world.std.com>
The Attack Dog of Usenet
RRRAAHR!
Lynn Diana Gazis
Steven Garman (Suga...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Pray, Sir, stick to the intent of the topic, instead of using a pointless
: extremity. Due personal privacy that avoids personal harm has little to do
: with arguing matters of philosophy on newsgroups. That is part of what I
: meant by saying that niceties should not deny data. Any experience with the
: real world will show you that "manners" is often just a tool used to control
: information for the purposes of tyranny ... and information control like
: that is what everyone *claims* to be against. Right?
Wrong, if by "information control" you mean the simple courtesy of
respecting people's wishes regarding their *own* words. *My* personal
experience teaches me not to trust people who assert that they should be
the sole judges of what personal email should and shouldn't be posted.
I've seen email posted which had quite personal family information in
it. And seen the act justified by the poster. No, I prefer, since the
custom has long been that people should be able to expect privacy in
their email (particularly when they explicitly request it, but even when
they don't), that *that* be the default understanding, and that the
burden of proof be very strongly on the poster of private email to show
that he or she has a solid reason for posting which could muster general
support (e.g. that the email in question is an official communication,
perhaps, or certainly if the email in question is non-private spam-mail
sent out to a few hundred people, and is being posted with full headers
to the appropriate abuse newsgroup).
[snipped]
: Again, I am not ashamed of my words, public or private. How about you?
I'm not ashamed of my conversations with my husband, either, but I'd be
less than happy with him if he broadcast my words to a few thousand
people without my permission. Shame isn't the issue. Respecting
people's stated wishes for privacy is.
In this particular case, I don't even see where I have any useful "data."
The person doing the posting claims that the person whose words were
posted was threatening some Bahai penalty which I've never heard of, and
which is completely obscure to me. The person whose email was posted says
he was doing nothing of the kind. How would any of us non-Bahai hope to
derive any information from that? We can only give the man whose email
was posted the benefit of the doubt, which I do. I have no reason to
believe that this man's email was any kind of official communication from
the Bahai church attempting to suppress dissent, so I fail to see where
his private email is any of my business. If anyone involved is really
doing anything which is out of line for Bahai, it should really be taken
up within *that* church.
Lynn Gazis-Sax
Bruce Baugh
>Again, I am not ashamed of my words, public or private. How about you?
I have been known to say things in e-mail that could be damaging, to
myself or to another, which I deem appropriate to send to an individual
but which I choose not to broadcast. Likewise, I may well choose to take
an argument no longer relevant to the public forum into private
exchanges, preserving the utility of the public forum for its declared
purposes. Freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak to
those one does not wish to address.