Pat Kohli & Dr Maneck disobey advice from UHJ. Re: 2001 Northern Ireland census: Re: Magennis VC
Baldrick
Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 1/4/04 1:55 am:
> Susan Maneck wrote:
>
>>> Why are you speaking with Dermod on TRB when Department of the
>>> Secretariat has warned another Bahai it is *Spirtual corrosive* to
>>> speak with him on the internet?
>>
>
> George, I do recall the letter from the BWC quoting from another letter,
> perhaps the April 1999 letter, but I don't recall the letter saying that
> Dermod, or Karen, for that matter, were "spiritually corrosive", though
> I understand that Dermod might prefer to read it tht way. since he has
> yet to attain a declaration of CBhood.
Pat Kohli,
It is clear as the noonday sun, you have not read or understood
properly what the UHJ has advised BIGS like you and DR Maneck in the D
of S letter, enclosed (below) again for yours and Dr Maneck's
perusal.
A section of the letter states:
******"In cases of inveterate hostility to the Cause, the Universal
House of
Justice has advised: The effect of continued exposure to such
insincerity about matters vital to humanity's well-being is
spiritually corrosive. When we encounter minds that are closed and
hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Baha'u'llah urges that we
leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the opportunities
which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths which He
teaches."******
Dermod is correct in the way he reads it? You are wrong Pat Kohli. The
UHJ does not say either Dermod or Karen must "attain a declaration of
CBhood" before they are to be shunned. The Universal House advises
that the "effect of continued exposure" to Dermod & Karen's "minds
that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice," will
be "spiritually corrosive" to BIGS like you and Dr Maneck if you both
continue to correspond with them.
So why are you and DR Maneck disobeying your Universal House's advice
to avoid correspondence with Dermod and Karen on TRB? Your Universal
House states: " the friends should be advised to just leave these
people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
destructive."
Surely TRB readers will agree, it was hypocritical self-righteous gall
for BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck to report George Fleming to the
UK NSA and his ABM for naughty behaviour on TRB, when he was a BIGS,
when they themselves refuse to obey their own Universal House of
Justice's advice to stay away from *CONTINUED EXPOSURE* to Dermod &
Karen's "minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
malice," ?
Surely TRB readers must agree that serious questions must be asked
regards the unusual longtime friendship between Dr Maneck & Karen
Bacquet and Pat Kohli & Dermod Ryder. Two Fundamentalist BIGS (Maneck
& Kohli) hopping into bed with *Confirmed* enemies of the faith by the
UHJ (Bacquet & Ryder). Has anyone else found this TRB friendship
most *ODD*? All comments welcome.
Enclosed is the letter from Department of the Secretariat again for
BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck's perusal. It looks like neither of
them were listening to what the Universal House had to say about their
unusual (hopping into bed ) relationship with enemies of the Faith
Dermod & Karen.
Baldrick
Dear Baha'i Friend,
Your two email messages of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, in which you
inquire
about four individuals with whom you have been in contact through
discussions over the Internet, have been received at the Baha\'i World
Centre and referred to our Department for response.
"Ms. Karen Bacquet, Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr.
Dermod
Ryder, all of whom are no longer members of the Baha\'i community,
have long
exhibited highly critical attitudes toward the institutions of the
Faith.
It is clear from various postings on the Internet that Ms. Bacquet
manifests
a deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith. Mr.
Glaysher
and Mr. Hazini have both, over a period of time, taken a number of
actions
inimical to the Faith. They both seem bent on their own personal
campaigns
to undermine the integrity of the Teachings and institutions of the
Cause in
the minds of persons unwise enough to take them seriously.
In cases of inveterate hostility to the Cause, the Universal House of
Justice has advised:
The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
vital to
humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we encounter
minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice,
Baha'u'llah urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion
of the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of
the Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less
serious than, the present one, "...the friends should be advised to
just leave these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but
negative and destructive."
With loving Baha'i greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
-------------------------------------------------
>
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
> in article c4fokm$2gjbbu$2...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad
> Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 1/4/04 1:55 am:
>
>
>>Susan Maneck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Why are you speaking with Dermod on TRB when Department of the
>>>>Secretariat has warned another Bahai it is *Spirtual corrosive* to
>>>>speak with him on the internet?
>>>
>>George, I do recall the letter from the BWC quoting from another letter,
>>perhaps the April 1999 letter, but I don't recall the letter saying that
>>Dermod, or Karen, for that matter, were "spiritually corrosive", though
>>I understand that Dermod might prefer to read it tht way. since he has
>>yet to attain a declaration of CBhood.
>
>
> Pat Kohli,
>
> It is clear as the noonday sun, you have not read or understood
> properly what the UHJ has advised BIGS like you and DR Maneck in the D
> of S letter, enclosed (below) again for yours and Dr Maneck's
> perusal.
I've forgotten what D of S stands for.
The section of the letter, which advises the friends to leave such
persons to God and turn our attentions to others, is a quotation from
the April 1999 letter. Here I've copied it as it appears on a website,
so readers can see the original text in context (w/ transcription issues).
The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters vital
to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we encounter
minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice,
Bah?'u'll?h urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of the
Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less serious
than, the present one, " ... the friends should be advised to just leave
these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
destructive...."
http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilation_issues_study_bahai.html
The web page continues w/ a letter on the same theme, to the Continental
Counsellors:
Another significant theme that is raised in both the 7 April letter and
the document on "Opposition to the Cause and its use of the Internet" is
the potentially harmful effect that can result from continued exposure
to discussions that attack the Administrative Order. Rather than a
"serious exploration of Bah?'? themes," it is reported that in certain
discussion groups on the Internet one encounters derogatory and
defamatory remarks against Bah?'? institutions and its members.
Counsellors may wish to advise believers engaged in these discussions to
ponder earnestly the counsel from the Universal House of Justice that
to continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism
to the Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas
other than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the Bah?'?s who take
part, can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive.
xxxxxxx end of quote from same URL xxxxxxxx
My read, is that the adminsitrative order is concerned that Baha'is, as
you were two years ago, don't get consumed when they discover internet
critics, as you allowed yourself to get consumed.
I've been here for several years, now. I don't think I'll be consumed
by the criticisms.
> A section of the letter states:
>
> ******"In cases of inveterate hostility to the Cause, the Universal
> House of
> Justice has advised: The effect of continued exposure to such
> insincerity about matters vital to humanity's well-being is
> spiritually corrosive. When we encounter minds that are closed and
> hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Baha'u'llah urges that we
> leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the opportunities
> which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths which He
> teaches."******
>
> Dermod is correct in the way he reads it?
Dermod would like to think that he is being called spiritually
corrosive. More likely, the quotation was inserted for Jim's benefit -
_if_ Jim finds Dermod, Karen, Juan, or Nima, to be insincere, _then_
they may be spiritually corrosive to him.
How about you, George? If you find someone to be insincere, do you find
that they have a spiritually corrosive effect on you?
> You are wrong Pat Kohli.
That French-Suisse Pat Kohli is the wrong Pat Kohli; I am right.
> The
> UHJ does not say either Dermod or Karen must "attain a declaration of
> CBhood" before they are to be shunned.
I think the BWC was advising Jim to avoid those who were insincere about
grave matters, due to the potential effect continued interaction could
have on him. You really are the best person I can think of to
illustrate this issue.
> The Universal House advises
> that the "effect of continued exposure" to Dermod & Karen's "minds
The UHJ did not write that Dermod and Karen's minds needed to be
shunned, in this letter.
> that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice," will
> be "spiritually corrosive" to BIGS like you and Dr Maneck if you both
> continue to correspond with them.
They would be spirituall corrosive if I found them to be insincere.
Didn't you describe Dermod to me, as insincere, in the weeks before your
resignation? Didn't you lecture me that you knew, and I did not know,
what he was up to? Didn't your line on him, that you knew, and I was
naive, really indicate the depths to which you judged him insincere?
Look how things played out with you! You make the BWC look like prophets!
> So why are you and DR Maneck disobeying your Universal House's advice
> to avoid correspondence with Dermod and Karen on TRB?
You have misread. The UHJ had advised against interaction with those I
find to be insincere about the grave challenges for humanity.
"The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we
encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
malice, Bah?'u'll?h urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
the truths which He teaches."
> Your Universal
> House states: " the friends should be advised to just leave these
> people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
> destructive."
Good point! The letter does not read, "the friends should be advised to
just leave Karen and Dermod alone, for their influence can be nothing
but negative and destructive." Why do you suppose that is? My guess,
is because the statement is from another letter, addressing the topic of
dealing with/ignoring the insincere.
> Surely TRB readers will agree, it was hypocritical self-righteous gall
> for BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck to report George Fleming to the
> UK NSA and his ABM for naughty behaviour on TRB, when he was a BIGS,
Surely, the TRB readers will agree, that what I did, in reporting you to
your NSA, was waht you asked for at the time, and, if after the fact,
you have some issue with that, a) your issue is with you, since you
asked for it, and B) Make up your mind - in the past, you saw it as a
milestone in your eventual resignation from this religion which you've
been glad to leave (to whatever extent you have left).
> when they themselves refuse to obey their own Universal House of
> Justice's advice to stay away from *CONTINUED EXPOSURE* to Dermod &
> Karen's "minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
> malice," ?
I don't see that Dermod and Karen's minds are closed, darkened, etc.
> Surely TRB readers must agree that serious questions must be asked
> regards the unusual longtime friendship between Dr Maneck & Karen
> Bacquet and Pat Kohli & Dermod Ryder.
Well, George, I'd disagreed with Dermod about things, and still
appreciated his attempts at humour. Oddly, your conduct, and the
challenges it has placed in our relationship (Dermod and mine) has
contributed tremendously toward us realizing some common values, which I
think we both value over the tribal allegiances of
enrollment/resignation. You helped crystalize my perception that the
fact of an individual's enrollment should hold them to a higher standard
on TRB, and I think the fact of your resignation, coupled with your
continued being of yourself, coupled with your ability to gain
sympathetic expressions from Nima, has done the same for Dermod - that
you and Nima have resigned does not mean that you have a pass to conduct
yourselves w/o some standards of decency.
BTW, since you, not me, were the one who introduced relationship w/
Dermod into the discussion, please do feel free to accuse me of trying
to poison your relationship with him. It won't bother me.
> Two Fundamentalist BIGS (Maneck
> & Kohli) hopping into bed with *Confirmed* enemies of the faith by the
> UHJ (Bacquet & Ryder). Has anyone else found this TRB friendship
> most *ODD*? All comments welcome.
I don't think it is odd for Baha'is to get along with Dermod and KAren.
Just because you could not stand to see Karen on Baha'i Studies, or to
see Dermod here, that does not mean that Baha'is can not talk with them.
> Enclosed is the letter from Department of the Secretariat again for
> BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck's perusal.
The letter for Jim?
The passage on avoiding people who were insincere about matters of grave
significance for humanity, was a quotation from an earlier letter.
- Mr. Bad
Baldrick
Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
Department of the Secretariat
By proving that a (standard) quote used in Jims letter was used in
other letters only goes to prove that Jim's letter has the authoritive
stamp of the Universal House.
>
> My read, is that the adminsitrative order is concerned that Baha'is, as
> you were two years ago, don't get consumed when they discover internet
> critics, as you allowed yourself to get consumed.
>
> I've been here for several years, now. I don't think I'll be consumed
> by the criticisms.
So you and Dr Maneck are extra special *AMERICAN* Baha'is who have
promoted yourselves over and above all other Baha'is of the world who
use TRB? Or have you been specially chosen by American Counsellors
just like Dr Maneck told me (back on Bahai Studies) she was chosen to
defend the Faith on TRB?
>
>> A section of the letter states:
>>
>> ******"In cases of inveterate hostility to the Cause, the Universal
>> House of
>> Justice has advised: The effect of continued exposure to such
>> insincerity about matters vital to humanity's well-being is
>> spiritually corrosive. When we encounter minds that are closed and
>> hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Baha'u'llah urges that
we
>> leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the
opportunities
>> which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths which He
>> teaches."******
>>
>> Dermod is correct in the way he reads it?
>
> Dermod would like to think that he is being called spiritually
> corrosive. More likely, the quotation was inserted for Jim's benefit -
> _if_ Jim finds Dermod, Karen, Juan, or Nima, to be insincere, _then_
> they may be spiritually corrosive to him.
If Bahai's are warned that continuous "negative and destructive"
interaction with Dermod is "spiritually corrosive" then Dermod is
correct. You have to get smitten with a "spiritually corrosive"
disease from a carrier to begin with. According to the advice given
by the Universal House the carrier of the "spiritually corrosive"
disease is of course Dermod.
>
> How about you, George? If you find someone to be insincere, do you find
> that they have a spiritually corrosive effect on you?
This thread is not about just general insincerity of meeting people
in everyday life. The thread is a debate about advice (in a letter)
from your Universal House about BIGS you and Dr Maneck's constant
contact with ex-bahai enemies of your faith on TRB (this newsgroup).
The thread is about exposing yours and DR Maneck's hypocrisy regards
advice given from the UHJ concerning four ex baha'is. Nima, Fred,
Dermod & Karen. On the one hand you and Dr Maneck shun Nima & Fred as
'Spiritually corrosive' bad guys. Yet on the other hand you are
defending Dermod and Karen as "non spirtually corrosive' good guy
buddies.
The Universal House has classed all four as 'spirtually corrosive'
So who is correct:
No1) the Universal House, or:
No2) The extra special all American BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan
Maneck?
>> You are wrong Pat Kohli.
>
> That French-Suisse Pat Kohli is the wrong Pat Kohli; I am right.
No Dermod is correct in his interpretation about the quote 'spirtually
corrosive' and pat Kohli is definitely 100% wrong.
>
>> The
>> UHJ does not say either Dermod or Karen must "attain a declaration
of
>> CBhood" before they are to be shunned.
>
> I think the BWC was advising Jim to avoid those who were insincere about
> grave matters, due to the potential effect continued interaction could
> have on him. You really are the best person I can think of to
> illustrate this issue.
But the advice from the Universal House in the BWC letter is not
directed at me as I am no longer a Bahai. The advice is directed at
Jim and other BIGS like you Pat Kohli & Dr Susan maneck now the letter
is on the internet.
>
>> The Universal House advises
>> that the "effect of continued exposure" to Dermod & Karen's "minds
>
> The UHJ did not write that Dermod and Karen's minds needed to be
> shunned, in this letter.
The advice given by the UHJ in the letter (which is as clear as the
noon day sun) is that all BIGS (which includes You and Dr maneck)
should shun any interaction with Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred on the
internet. You only shun Nima & Fred as guys whose guts you hate
anyway, but you are all lovey dovey with Dermod and Karen. The UHJ
judges all four 'enemies of the Faith" equally. Readers must agree you
and Dr maneck are hypocrites and insincere.
>
>> that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice,"
will
>> be "spiritually corrosive" to BIGS like you and Dr Maneck if you
both
>> continue to correspond with them.
>
> They would be spiritually corrosive if I found them to be insincere.
The UHJ has found them 'spiritually corrosive' so you are insincere
and lying to yourself and are disobedient to the Universal House
> Didn't you describe Dermod to me, as insincere, in the weeks before your
> resignation? Didn't you lecture me that you knew, and I did not know,
> what he was up to? Didn't your line on him, that you knew, and I was
> naive, really indicate the depths to which you judged him insincere?
> Look how things played out with you! You make the BWC look like prophets!
Remember I was a very poor Baha'i, you and Dr maneck reported me to
the UK NSA and my ABM for flaming with Dermod. Surely you didn't think
I should have been blowing him kisses and praising him then do you?
The object of the thread is not to make the BWC look like prophets,
but is to expose you and Dr maneck as a pair or pretentious BIGS
hypocrites.
>
>> So why are you and DR Maneck disobeying your Universal House's
advice
>> to avoid correspondence with Dermod and Karen on TRB?
>
> You have misread. The UHJ had advised against interaction with those I
> find to be insincere about the grave challenges for humanity.
It is you who has misread. The UHJ advised against interaction with
Karen & Dermod because the UHJ said "Ms. Bacquet manifests a
deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith" & Dermod
is "Spiritually Corrosive'.
> find to be
>
> "The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
> vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we
> encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
> malice, Bah?'u'll?h urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
> attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
> the truths which He teaches."
This statement you have taken from a different letter and not the
letter with Dermod & Karen's name on it. Another cheap shod trick
only an insincere BIGS like Pat Kohli could do.
>
>> Your Universal
>> House states: " the friends should be advised to just leave these
>> people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
>> destructive."
>
> Good point! The letter does not read, "the friends should be advised to
> just leave Karen and Dermod alone, for their influence can be nothing
> but negative and destructive." Why do you suppose that is? My guess,
> is because the statement is from another letter, addressing the topic of
> dealing with/ignoring the insincere.
You are *supposing* were the quote came from instead of reading and
digesting its proper meaning. Looking for an excuse to ignore the
UHJ's advice to leave Dermod & Karen alone, like you and Dr Maneck
have already shunned Nima & Fred.
>
>> Surely TRB readers will agree, it was hypocritical self-righteous
gall
>> for BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck to report George Fleming to
the
>> UK NSA and his ABM for naughty behaviour on TRB, when he was a
BIGS,
>
> Surely, the TRB readers will agree, that what I did, in reporting you to
> your NSA, was waht you asked for at the time, and, if after the fact,
> you have some issue with that, a) your issue is with you, since you
> asked for it, and B) Make up your mind - in the past, you saw it as a
> milestone in your eventual resignation from this religion which you've
> been glad to leave (to whatever extent you have left).
Yeah, but now I have left, it is your hypocrisy and selfrighteousness
we are dealing with now. Remember its is you who want to create the
image you are a spiritually clean goody goody defender of Bahaism, and
I Nima & Fred are dirty scumbags. But there are many on TRB see you
and Dr Maneck as the two pretentious scumbags instead.
>
>> when they themselves refuse to obey their own Universal House of
>> Justice's advice to stay away from *CONTINUED EXPOSURE* to Dermod &
>> Karen's "minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by
evident
>> malice," ?
>
> I don't see that Dermod and Karen's minds are closed, darkened, etc.
Well the UHJ has said they are, so you you are disagreeing with them.
>
>> Surely TRB readers must agree that serious questions must be asked
>> regards the unusual longtime friendship between Dr Maneck & Karen
>> Bacquet and Pat Kohli & Dermod Ryder.
>
> Well, George, I'd disagreed with Dermod about things, and still
> appreciated his attempts at humour.
His pub humour may be up your street, I doubt if the UHJ would agree.
They never mentioned Dermod's humour in the letter
> Oddly, your conduct, and the
> challenges it has placed in our relationship (Dermod and mine) has
> contributed tremendously toward us realising some common values, which I
> think we both value over the tribal allegiances of
> enrollment/resignation. You helped crystalize my perception that the
> fact of an individual's enrollment should hold them to a higher standard
> on TRB, and I think the fact of your resignation, coupled with your
> continued being of yourself, coupled with your ability to gain
> sympathetic expressions from Nima, has done the same for Dermod - that
> you and Nima have resigned does not mean that you have a pass to conduct
> yourselves w/o some standards of decency.
Now we are back to your selfrighteous crap of judging Nima and me as
inferior to you, and judging Dermod much further up the ladder of in
the moral stakes all because you like his humour.
>
> BTW, since you, not me, were the one who introduced relationship w/
> Dermod into the discussion, please do feel free to accuse me of trying
> to poison your relationship with him. It won't bother me.
My flames with Dermod on TRB was more to do with local sectarianism
than it had to do with Baha'ism. You manipulated our differences to
suit your own deceitful Baha'i agenda, exactly like the whole of
Bahaism manipulates different cultural and religious sectarianism
throughout the world to propagate their own religion as the good guys
against the bad guys.
>
>> Two Fundamentalist BIGS (Maneck
>> & Kohli) hopping into bed with *Confirmed* enemies of the faith by
the
>> UHJ (Bacquet & Ryder). Has anyone else found this TRB friendship
>> most *ODD*? All comments welcome.
>
> I don't think it is odd for Baha'is to get along with Dermod and KAren.
> Just because you could not stand to see Karen on Baha'i Studies, or to
> see Dermod here, that does not mean that Baha'is can not talk with them.
I have never had any objection to Karen or any other internet user
subscribing to Bahai Studies. This was a lie constructed by Dr maneck
to use as a smokesreen to cover up her hypocrisy over the Juan, Fred,
karen article thread on BS.
TRB is an open newsgroup for all the public, no one can stop any other
citizen of the world from using it. It was yourself and Dr maneck who
tried your hardest to get me removed from TRB, and failed.
>
>> Enclosed is the letter from Department of the Secretariat again for
>> BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck's perusal.
>
> The letter for Jim?
The advice in the letter from the UHJ was for all BIGS.
>
> The passage on avoiding people who were insincere about matters of grave
> significance for humanity, was a quotation from an earlier letter.
That was not in Jim's letter, you are only making excuses to be
friendly with Dermod & Karen while at the same time shunning ima and
Fred.
Once more your hypocrisy has come forward and exposed you as one of
those Baha'is like Dr maneck, who will only obey advice from the UHJ
when it suits you. Yet at the same time you both use other official
UHJ letters to beat other Baha'is into submission to both yours and Dr
maneck's bully boy tactics, so as to rule as top defenders of Bahaism
on TRB.
Making friends with Karen & Dermod is part of that sneaky AO agenda.
Baldrick
Baldrick
other letters only goes to prove that Jim's letter has the authoritative
Steve Marshall
>On the one hand you and Dr Maneck shun Nima & Fred as
>'Spiritually corrosive' bad guys. Yet on the other hand you are
>defending Dermod and Karen as "non spirtually corrosive' good guy
>buddies.
Call me perverse (Nima frequently does!) but I've always found Susan
and Pat's "disobedience" to be one of their more endearing qualities.
Baldrick
at asm...@es.co.nz wrote on 2/4/04 12:45 pm:
How come their 'disobedient' endearing quality never shined forth when
it came to standing up for your dear wife Alison when she got the boot
for speaking her mind freely on the internet. Whose side did they take
then?
Nima, Fred, Rod, Cal Starr, myself and others cannot all be wrong. We
have all observed their double standard Bahai hypocrisy, lies,
deception coupled with their arrogant selfrighteousness, when they run
like two scared rats to hide behind the Administration once cornered
in any open debate like Rod has caught them out many times.
Endearing qualities my ass, Dr Maneck and pat Kohli are a pair of sly
BIGS hypocritical creeps. The only hole is good for them is Baha'ism
Baldrick
--
Cal E. Rollins
You've got to remember that Susan (I don't know about what Pat really
feels about the Universal House of Justice since he seems rather opaque
in that regard) did say that she is slowly educating the Universal House
of Justice to understand the concepts of hikmat and rijal in regard to
putting women on their membership.
That leads me, at least, to believe that she considers she has some
special purpose and calling in the Faith which might put her beyond
House of Justice admonitions to the rest of us. Maybe the House of
Justice feels the same; since we know her Counsellor does.
Now of that list of four, two of them are really quite fun, and one of
them very knowledgeable and erudite due to Baha'i cultural roots. I
find it hard to understand the concept of spiritual corrosiveness
especially when it applies to learning something new and of personal
value. In Nima's regard, I ignore how he says things some times and am
always fascinated by what he says as it relates to the Faith and our
history. I just wish I could hear more.
Maybe the House of Justice means that for me to get a little bit of
knowledge (unless it's carefully processed and spoonfed like Gerbers
baby food) is a dangerous thing and might give me indigestion, the
burps, colic, or corrosive diarrhea? Well having had two babies, I can
understand the House of Justice concern, I guess. But I'd sure miss the
Reaper steam-trapping the fragrances from the Pig Sty.
The thought of sitting around for another 50 years of reading books and
longingly anticipating something informative and interesting to be
printed gives me the whim whams.
Maybe Adelard was right. I should go pioneering to Africa where I can
bet macheted for excitement and purpose in my life! --Cal
Susan Maneck
>Nima, Fred, Rod, Cal Starr, myself and others cannot all be wrong.
Yeah, and the John Birch Society and the Mafia probably don't think very highly
of me either.
>when they run
>like two scared rats to hide behind the Administration once cornered
>in any open debate like Rod has caught them out many times.
"Run behind the Administration"? How so? I don't talk to Rod because I find his
communication style abusive.
Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040402094612...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >
> >Nima, Fred, Rod, Cal Starr, myself and others cannot all be wrong.
>
> Yeah, and the John Birch Society and the Mafia probably don't think very
highly
> of me either.
So there is some good in the John Birch Society and the Mafia after all!
Who'd have thought it?
Dermod Ryder
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1bkq60ts01skmtr00...@4ax.com...
It's a very "Irish" quality which makes me wonder how it ever afflicted the
DST!
Steve Marshall
Picking and choosing which commands to obey is something most Baha'is
do to some extent.
Usually it's the liberals who get accused of picking and choosing by
the fundies. But then isn't it true that Baha'u'llah asks us to have a
sin-covering eye, and aren't the fundies being selectively obedient
when they choose to ignore that admonition?
ka kite
Steve
Karen Bacquet
Dear Steve,
You are exactly right -- the fundies on Beliefnet totally ignored the
advice from the UHJ on Internet interactions, even when it was brought
to their attention. Obedience to the UHJ is really given more
lip-service than it is translated into action. Fundamentalists, in
general, are champion pickers-and-choosers, while claiming to be
preserving the "true faith".
I think it's human nature, to some extent -- we all, instinctively,
treat some scriptural commands as being more important than others. The
difference between liberals and conservatives often comes down to which
ones.
However, in Susan and Pat's case -- which I believe is where all this
started -- I think they simply don't think that Secretariat letter
represents a general call to shun. Clearly, Jim didn't either.
However, in the copy I got, the writer of the email most certainly did,
and he's a high muckety-muck. His whole purpose in forwarding that
letter was to warn someone off us. And, it would take some real
convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
talk to us.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
> ka kite
> Steve
Steve Marshall
> And, it would take some real
>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
>talk to us.
Oh, I'm convinced of the opposite. I reckon the House of Cards
dislikes it when Baha'is talk to us. Sorry, I mean you, not us - I'm
not on any list.
ka kite
Steve
Karen Bacquet
Oops, that's what I actually meant to say -- they don't want Baha'is
talking to us. How did I do that?
Dermod Ryder
"Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:406E097...@tco.net...
>
>
> Steve Marshall wrote:
> > Karen Bacquet wrote:
> >
> >>And, it would take some real
> >>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
> >>talk to us.
> >
> >
> > Oh, I'm convinced of the opposite. I reckon the House of Cards
> > dislikes it when Baha'is talk to us. Sorry, I mean you, not us - I'm
> > not on any list.
>
> Oops, that's what I actually meant to say -- they don't want Baha'is
> talking to us. How did I do that?
Freudian slip? Isn't Steve on the shit-list of the Grumpies at the moment
except that they can't work up what it takes to meet him under conditions
that they have not dictated?
Is that a breeze wafting in from Jackson to contradict me? I could be wrong
as this is the time of year that, in these parts at least, spring is
springing and the farmers spread dung all over the fields.
Karen Bacquet
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> news:406E097...@tco.net...
>
>>
>>Steve Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>Karen Bacquet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And, it would take some real
>>>>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
>>>>talk to us.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, I'm convinced of the opposite. I reckon the House of Cards
>>>dislikes it when Baha'is talk to us. Sorry, I mean you, not us - I'm
>>>not on any list.
>>
>>Oops, that's what I actually meant to say -- they don't want Baha'is
>>talking to us. How did I do that?
>
>
> Freudian slip?
Well, that's a better answer than I expected -- I thought you'd tease me
for making online mistakes like Susan. I definitely made a gaffe, but
at least I spelled it correctly. :-)
Isn't Steve on the shit-list of the Grumpies at the moment
> except that they can't work up what it takes to meet him under conditions
> that they have not dictated?
I don't know about the Grumpies, but I suspect he's not one of the NSA's
favorite people. When Baha'i officials want to meet with you, you are
just supposed to show up and let them hammer you -- you aren't supposed
to set conditions. Only a very naive person would meet with one of
these people on their own, now.
I strongly suspect that they expected Steve to resign when Alison was
booted; I don't think they planned on having him still hanging around.
Well, the ball is in their court -- we shall see.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
Freethought110
> Baldrick has brought up a good point about selective obedience.
> Picking and choosing which commands to obey is something most Baha'is
> do to some extent.
Like you and your Madam so called wife, Alison, for example. Selective
stupidity and sanitization is a hallmark of Anglo baha'i cultists
without exception. You and Madam Alison stand out as sore thumbs in
that regard.
Baldrick
Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
> Dermod would like to think that he is being called spiritually
> corrosive. More likely, the quotation was inserted for Jim's benefit -
> _if_ Jim finds Dermod, Karen, Juan, or Nima, to be insincere, _then_
> they may be spiritually corrosive to him.
Five years ago Dr Susan Maneck, even wrote herself to the house
telling them she believed it was "spiritually corrosive" to continue
dialogue with the likes of Karen and Dermod **who have shown a fixed
antagonism to the Faith**, so why is she still doing so five years
later? Would you not agree she is a hypocrite for not following
through the advice she has written in her own letter?
Baldrick
Dr Maneck said:
" However, to continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed
antagonism to the Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to
any ideas other than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the
Bahá'ís who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually
corrosive."
http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_academic_methodologies.html
--
Steve Marshall
>Freudian slip? Isn't Steve on the shit-list of the Grumpies at the moment
>except that they can't work up what it takes to meet him under conditions
>that they have not dictated?
I hardly think so, Dermod. The NSA is simply terribly busy with more
important matters, like the rampant growth of the Cause, at the
moment. It's setting up exciting new institutions like the Cluster
Growth Committees (more on that later). The last I heard from the NSA
on its investigation was in early November 2003:
From: "NZ Secretariat" <secre...@nsa.org.nz>
To: "Steve Marshall (E-mail)" <asm...@es.co.nz>
Subject: Acknowledgement
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:02:41 +1300
NEW ZEALAND BAHA'I NATIONAL OFFICE
Steve Marshall
Dear Steve,
The National Spiritual Assembly has received your email of 24 October,
and will respond at its earliest opportunity.
Warmest Baha'i love
John Deverell
Administrative Secretary
Rod
>
> Yeah, and the John Birch Society and the Mafia probably don't think very
highly
> of me either.
>
> >when they run
> >like two scared rats to hide behind the Administration once cornered
> >in any open debate like Rod has caught them out many times.
>
> "Run behind the Administration"? How so? I don't talk to Rod because I
find his
> communication style abusive.
Ahhhhhhhh........Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut you evasive
bitch.
You start a flame war with me, duck behind a killfile when the action gets
too
hot, then, in desperation, resort to the slimiest of all Baha'i Techniques-
false allegation of criminal activity- "Cyberstalking"- a charge you cannot
justify, explain or defend.
And you whish to pretend there is something 'spiritual' about your totally
unethical
behaviour and something "abusive" about openly/honestly calling you out as
the bitch you are?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Nima need not advocate Baha'i is a cult......you make/prove his arguement
for him.
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
> in article c4ih7d$2hrrjl$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad
> Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
>
>
>>
(snip)
Two things:
1) I don't see that anyone has seriously questioned whether the letter
is from the Secretariat at the BWC; I'm assuming it is exactly what it
purports to be.
2) For future reference, when someone does attempt to forge something,
of course they will employ sentences and paragraphs from the source that
they are imitating.
>>My read, is that the adminsitrative order is concerned that Baha'is, as
>>you were two years ago, don't get consumed when they discover internet
>>critics, as you allowed yourself to get consumed.
>>
>>I've been here for several years, now. I don't think I'll be consumed
>>by the criticisms.
>
>
> So you and Dr Maneck are extra special *AMERICAN* Baha'is who have
> promoted yourselves over and above all other Baha'is of the world who
> use TRB?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying, that unlike you, I survived my first
100 days on TRB w/o losing my religion, and I'm saying that in your
first 100 days, to include your numerous and well documented personal
attacks on people, apparently done in your own misunderstanding of how
to defend the BF, you apostasized. This is to say, that _your_
interaction, with people _you_ judged to be insincere about the BF, was
likely spiritually corrosive to _you_.
> Or have you been specially chosen by American Counsellors
> just like Dr Maneck told me (back on Bahai Studies) she was chosen to
> defend the Faith on TRB?
I would not say that at all. I have no special relationship with the
Counsellors, the US NSA, or the local Assistants to the ABMs. I am, for
most purposes, a rank and file Baha'i in a small community. If you want
to drag out my participation in the LSA, I will point out it is typical
for a community of nine or ten active adults, for the rank and file
member to be on the LSA.
(snip)
>>>
>>>Dermod is correct in the way he reads it?
>>
>>Dermod would like to think that he is being called spiritually
>>corrosive. More likely, the quotation was inserted for Jim's benefit -
>>_if_ Jim finds Dermod, Karen, Juan, or Nima, to be insincere, _then_
>>they may be spiritually corrosive to him.
>
>
> If Bahai's are warned that continuous "negative and destructive"
> interaction with Dermod is "spiritually corrosive"
This was not the case. So
> (snip)
>
>>How about you, George? If you find someone to be insincere, do you find
>>that they have a spiritually corrosive effect on you?
>
>
> This thread is not about just general insincerity of meeting people
> in everyday life. The thread is a debate about advice (in a letter)
> from your Universal House about BIGS you and Dr Maneck's constant
> contact with ex-bahai enemies of your faith on TRB (this newsgroup).
1) I do not agree that Karen is an ex-Baha'i. If you say this is about
interaction between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is, then Susan's interaction
with Karen, is outside the scope of this message, which you have titled
to imply Susan's disobedience in her dialog w/ Karen.
2) Though Dermod is often critical of Baha'is, the Baha'i community, and
the AO, I believe that his criticisms are motivated by love, and though
he may have moments, I find him to be fundamentally quite sincere.
3) The notion of 'enemies of the faith' bears clarification. Though
Dermod may show enmity toward the faith, I see his intent as helpful, to
find and express valid criticism, though, at times, over-stated, or
based on a misunderstanding. In the same vein, I think you might find
systematic expressions of enmity toward the faith from Fred, or Juan,
though it is harder to read love from someone who claims to be an
adherent, and, perhaps interaction with Fred might be, for me,
corrosive, perhaps not. Be that as it may, the Baha'i faith should hold
no enmity toward anyone; rather we want to advance all of humanity.
> The thread is about exposing yours and DR Maneck's hypocrisy regards
> advice given from the UHJ concerning four ex baha'is. Nima, Fred,
Good luck. Fred says he is not an ex-Baha'i. Perhaps your argument
extends to him? Ditto Karen.
If your argument were that it is important for Baha'is to shun Nima, you
would seem selective in overlooking Cal's questions of him. Is it
because Cal is black?
> Dermod & Karen. On the one hand you and Dr Maneck shun Nima & Fred as
> 'Spiritually corrosive' bad guys. Yet on the other hand you are
Sometimes I stop reading Nima, and sometimes I read him again.
> defending Dermod and Karen as "non spirtually corrosive' good guy
> buddies.
>
> The Universal House has classed all four as 'spirtually corrosive'
That is your inference. It is not in the letter from the Secretariat.
> So who is correct:
>
(snip)
If you persist in the question, provide the quotation that would support
your assertion that these people ahve been named as spiritually
corrosive - a sentence reading 'persons A, B, C and D are spiritually
corrosive and Baha'is should shun them. Thanks!
>
>
>>>You are wrong Pat Kohli.
>>
>>That French-Suisse Pat Kohli is the wrong Pat Kohli; I am right.
>
>
> No Dermod is correct in his interpretation about the quote 'spirtually
> corrosive' and pat Kohli is definitely 100% wrong.
>
No. You are.
>>>The
>>>UHJ does not say either Dermod or Karen must "attain a declaration
>
> of
>
>>>CBhood" before they are to be shunned.
>>
>>I think the BWC was advising Jim to avoid those who were insincere about
>>grave matters, due to the potential effect continued interaction could
>>have on him. You really are the best person I can think of to
>>illustrate this issue.
>
>
> But the advice from the Universal House in the BWC letter is not
> directed at me as I am no longer a Bahai.
Nor was it directed at me, since I am no longer named Jim, and did not
ask their guidance on dealing with people on the internet. Instead, I
follow the general guidance, and avoid continued discourse whith people
whom I see as insincere about matters of grave import to humanity. When
I get past my judgement, I resume discourse. I hope this helps.
> The advice is directed at
> Jim and other BIGS like you Pat Kohli & Dr Susan maneck now the letter
> is on the internet.
What is directed at me, is the same paragraph in the April 1999 letter,
which does not name Karen, Dermod, Fred and Nima. The letter points out
this approach in dealing with people whom a Baha'i has found to be
insincere in matters of grave import to humanity.
>>>The Universal House advises
>>>that the "effect of continued exposure" to Dermod & Karen's "minds
>>
>>The UHJ did not write that Dermod and Karen's minds needed to be
>>shunned, in this letter.
>
>
> The advice given by the UHJ in the letter (which is as clear as the
> noon day sun) is that all BIGS (which includes You and Dr maneck)
> should shun any interaction with Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred on the
> internet.
You are not quoting from a sentence in the entire letter to Jim which
reads 'Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred are spiritually corrosive'. There is
no such sentence. What you have is an interpretation, that the letter
is saying to Jim 'Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred are spiritually corrosive'.
Since it is _your_ interpretation, rather than an explicit statement
of the letter, that 'Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred are spiritually
corrosive', your subsequent conclusions are of no bearing on me. Try
them out on Cal, perhaps?
> You only shun Nima & Fred as guys whose guts you hate
> anyway, but you are all lovey dovey with Dermod and Karen.
I don't hate them. I feel sorry for them. But from one week to the
next, they seem to be 'not quite right' or perhaps putting their act on
- who could be so goofy, and still keep a job?
> The UHJ
> judges all four 'enemies of the Faith" equally.
You are not quoting from a sentence in the entire letter to Jim which
reads 'Dermod, Karen, Nima & Fred are all four 'enemies of the Faith"
equally. Furthermore, I would point out, that the faith has no enmity
toward them.
> Readers must agree you
> and Dr maneck are hypocrites and insincere.
Readers will draw their own inferences.
(snip)
>>They would be spiritually corrosive if I found them to be insincere.
>
>
> The UHJ has found them 'spiritually corrosive'
So you say.
> so you are insincere
> and lying to yourself and are disobedient to the Universal House
>
So you say.
>
>>Didn't you describe Dermod to me, as insincere, in the weeks before your
>>resignation? Didn't you lecture me that you knew, and I did not know,
>>what he was up to? Didn't your line on him, that you knew, and I was
>>naive, really indicate the depths to which you judged him insincere?
>>Look how things played out with you! You make the BWC look like prophets!
>
>
> Remember I was a very poor Baha'i,
Not what you said at the time. You were telling me that you were the
super-Baha'i, and I was the naive pawn of these enemies of the faith.
> you and Dr maneck reported me to
> the UK NSA and my ABM for flaming with Dermod.
not hardly. Oddly, some guy named George Fleming _dared_ me to report
you. I CCed him, and he posted my email to this newsgroup. You really
should read it sometime, though it has been posted often. I will
summarize the events I pointed out. Flaming Dermod, was one of _many_
things you did that I pointed out to the NSA at your request.
o Regurgiposting hundreds of repeat messages through your first two days
o Falsely accusing me of being a dissident Baha'i
o Falsely accusimg me of hypocrisy in not complaining about Fred's
spamming prior to George Fleming's arrival
o Accusing TRB and perhaps ARB, of being Covenant Breaking Newsgroups
o Oh! Among other things, _yes_ I did mention the flaming petrol bomb,
combination insult and death threat! - BTW, Geroge, don't accuse me of
tryig to poison the good relationship you have with Dermod, in trying to
stir up old poop, because, _you_ brought it up. What the heck! Go
ahead, and accuse me anyway!
o Addressing the spokseperson of the Remeyite group, Orthodox Baha'is.
o Libeling Roman Catholics
o Using provanity, what the rest of us call, "profanity"
o Possible lack of resolve or confusion, in announcing departures, and
sticking around.
o Scaring off local NI seekers.
o and responding to good counsel, with bad insults.
Miscategorizing these eleven observations about your first two Baha'i
months on TRB, as simply just about your flaming with Dermod, shows you
don't understand the message, and, likely still don't understand what
you did, or, are simply in insistent denial.
> Surely you didn't think
> I should have been blowing him kisses and praising him then do you?
No. It was not just about Dermod, anyway, and you still don't get it.
> The object of the thread is not to make the BWC look like prophets,
> but is to expose you and Dr maneck as a pair or pretentious BIGS
> hypocrites.
Sometimes there are outcomes besides the one you intended. This is one
of those unintended outcomes. Had you read the April 1999 letter, and
took it to heart, perhaps you would have responded to your perception of
insincerity, by simply ignoring these people, rather than villifying
them, libelling them, and threatening them, and ultimately losing your
faith, as another unintended consequence.
>>>So why are you and DR Maneck disobeying your Universal House's
>
> advice
>
>>>to avoid correspondence with Dermod and Karen on TRB?
>>
>>You have misread. The UHJ had advised against interaction with those I
>>find to be insincere about the grave challenges for humanity.
>
>
> It is you who has misread. The UHJ advised against interaction with
> Karen & Dermod because the UHJ said "Ms. Bacquet manifests a
> deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith" & Dermod
> is "Spiritually Corrosive'.
>
You have misread. The letter, even the letter to Jim, does not say,
"Dermod is spiritually corrosive". Furthermore, w/o the context of
Jim's letters to the BWC, it is hard to determine if they are making a
proclamation on KAren, or simply echoing his statement, and providing
advice to him, based on the information he provided to them.
"Considering what other reasons Baha'u'llah might have for turning my
attention to those prescriptions, in response to my question about
those four people, I remembered that I need to be more thoughtful of
Baha'is who might be confused, distracted, and demoralized by their
defamation campaigns."
- Jim Habegger
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl695732838d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=99h520l60r2qvgo2pchplv94k94d8qat4j%404ax.com
>
>>find to be
>>
>>"The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
>>vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we
>>encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
>>malice, Bah?'u'll?h urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
>>attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
>>the truths which He teaches."
>
>
> This statement you have taken from a different letter and not the
> letter with Dermod & Karen's name on it. Another cheap shod trick
> only an insincere BIGS like Pat Kohli could do.
>
Read ahead, George, that would be chronologically back to my previous
response where I point out that the 'spiritually corrosive' part is a
quotation from the April 1999 letter, and, BTW, IIRC, you seized upon
this as basis for proclaiming Jim's email to be authentic!
>
>>>Your Universal
>>>House states: " the friends should be advised to just leave these
>>>people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
>>>destructive."
>>
>>Good point! The letter does not read, "the friends should be advised to
>>just leave Karen and Dermod alone, for their influence can be nothing
>>but negative and destructive." Why do you suppose that is? My guess,
>>is because the statement is from another letter, addressing the topic of
>>dealing with/ignoring the insincere.
>
>
> You are *supposing* were the quote came from instead of reading and
> digesting its proper meaning. Looking for an excuse to ignore the
> UHJ's advice to leave Dermod & Karen alone, like you and Dr Maneck
> have already shunned Nima & Fred.
Here is the passage in question, from Dermod's posting:
"The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we
encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
malice, Baha'u'llah urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of the
Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less serious
than, the present one, "...the friends should be advised to just leave
these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
destructive."
Here is the passage in question, from the April 1999 letter:
"The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we
encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident
malice, Bah?'u'll?h urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our
attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of
the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of the
Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less serious
than, the present one, " ... the friends should be advised to just leave
these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and
destructive...."
http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilation_issues_study_bahai.html
So, _yes_ I am supposing that the passage from the letter to Jim is a
quote from the April 1999 letter, because the passages are
_plainly_identical_, but for obvious transcription errors, possibly
induce by OCR software.
>>>Surely TRB readers will agree, it was hypocritical self-righteous
>
> gall
>
>>>for BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck to report George Fleming to
>
> the
>
>>>UK NSA and his ABM for naughty behaviour on TRB, when he was a
>
> BIGS,
>
>>Surely, the TRB readers will agree, that what I did, in reporting you to
>>your NSA, was waht you asked for at the time, and, if after the fact,
>>you have some issue with that, a) your issue is with you, since you
>>asked for it, and B) Make up your mind - in the past, you saw it as a
>>milestone in your eventual resignation from this religion which you've
>>been glad to leave (to whatever extent you have left).
>
>
> Yeah, but now I have left, it is your hypocrisy and selfrighteousness
> we are dealing with now.
Surely the readers will agree that it is your projection we are seeing
here, and seeing your_not_dealing_ with your projection issues.
> Remember its is you who want to create the
> image you are a spiritually clean goody goody defender of Bahaism, and
Exsquuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeze me? I am here for _my_ entertainment. If I
were to project an image, it would be that of a bahoooovey w/ impulse
control issues - Mr. Bad, not a goody goody - can you not read my
handle, and how I sign myself off? Hello, hello, anyone there?
> I Nima & Fred are dirty scumbags.
Speak for yourself; I can only guess what is going on with Fred and Nima.
> But there are many on TRB see you
> and Dr Maneck as the two pretentious scumbags instead.
I read a lot of projection on TRB. I was reading one guy who was
accusing me, Mr. Bad, of hypocrisy in trying to project an image of a
spiritually clean goody goody. Can you believe that?
>>>when they themselves refuse to obey their own Universal House of
>>>Justice's advice to stay away from *CONTINUED EXPOSURE* to Dermod &
>>>Karen's "minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by
>
> evident
>
>>>malice," ?
>>
>>I don't see that Dermod and Karen's minds are closed, darkened, etc.
>
>
> Well the UHJ has said they are, so you you are disagreeing with them.
>
I was not there when the UHJ whispered in your ear, 'Dermod and Karen
are to be shunned by all bahooooveys'.
>
>>>Surely TRB readers must agree that serious questions must be asked
>>>regards the unusual longtime friendship between Dr Maneck & Karen
>>>Bacquet and Pat Kohli & Dermod Ryder.
>>
>>Well, George, I'd disagreed with Dermod about things, and still
>>appreciated his attempts at humour.
>
>
> His pub humour may be up your street, I doubt if the UHJ would agree.
> They never mentioned Dermod's humour in the letter
>
>
>>Oddly, your conduct, and the
>>challenges it has placed in our relationship (Dermod and mine) has
>>contributed tremendously toward us realising some common values, which I
>>think we both value over the tribal allegiances of
>>enrollment/resignation. You helped crystalize my perception that the
>>fact of an individual's enrollment should hold them to a higher standard
>>on TRB, and I think the fact of your resignation, coupled with your
>>continued being of yourself, coupled with your ability to gain
>>sympathetic expressions from Nima, has done the same for Dermod - that
>>you and Nima have resigned does not mean that you have a pass to conduct
>>yourselves w/o some standards of decency.
>
>
> Now we are back to your selfrighteous crap of judging Nima and me as
> inferior to you,
Let the readers count how many times they've read death threats from you
and Nima, and from Dermod and myself.
> and judging Dermod much further up the ladder of in
> the moral stakes all because you like his humour.
How many times has he talked about putting a bullet in your head, as
you've done with Paul Hammond, or a flaming petrol bomb through your
window, as you have done with him? How many times has Nima said I
should be killed, should sleep with the fishes, etc? Has Dermod ever
threatened to kill anyone? Have I threatened to kill anyone?
>>BTW, since you, not me, were the one who introduced relationship w/
>>Dermod into the discussion, please do feel free to accuse me of trying
>>to poison your relationship with him. It won't bother me.
>
>
> My flames with Dermod on TRB was more to do with local sectarianism
> than it had to do with Baha'ism.
George, the sectarian differences in NI are supposed to be between
Protestant and Catholics. Baha'is should not have been in the mix until
you jumped in.
> You manipulated our differences to
> suit your own deceitful Baha'i agenda, exactly like the whole of
> Bahaism manipulates different cultural and religious sectarianism
> throughout the world to propagate their own religion as the good guys
> against the bad guys.
Wrong. You went after me as an uninformed blow hard, don't forget it.
>>>Two Fundamentalist BIGS (Maneck
>>>& Kohli) hopping into bed with *Confirmed* enemies of the faith by
>
> the
>
>>>UHJ (Bacquet & Ryder). Has anyone else found this TRB friendship
>>>most *ODD*? All comments welcome.
>>
>>I don't think it is odd for Baha'is to get along with Dermod and KAren.
>>Just because you could not stand to see Karen on Baha'i Studies, or to
>>see Dermod here, that does not mean that Baha'is can not talk with them.
>
>
> I have never had any objection to Karen or any other internet user
> subscribing to Bahai Studies. This was a lie constructed by Dr maneck
> to use as a smokesreen to cover up her hypocrisy over the Juan, Fred,
> karen article thread on BS.
I suppose there may be a 'lie in construction' somewhere in that
paragraph, if you say so.
> TRB is an open newsgroup for all the public, no one can stop any other
> citizen of the world from using it. It was yourself and Dr maneck who
> tried your hardest to get me removed from TRB, and failed.
My concerns about your netabuse, were to foster the use of the newgroup,
and your netabuse interfered with that.
>>>Enclosed is the letter from Department of the Secretariat again for
>>>BIGS Pat Kohli and Dr Susan Maneck's perusal.
>>
>>The letter for Jim?
>
>
> The advice in the letter from the UHJ was for all BIGS.
The April 1999 letter?
>>The passage on avoiding people who were insincere about matters of grave
>>significance for humanity, was a quotation from an earlier letter.
>
>
> That was not in Jim's letter, you are only making excuses to be
> friendly with Dermod & Karen while at the same time shunning ima and
> Fred.
I've already showed that the passage in Jim's letter _was_ from the
April 1999 letter, and you had already acknowledged that, before you
decided it would suit some bizarro agenda to now dispute the obvious.
> Once more your hypocrisy has come forward and exposed you as one of
> those Baha'is like Dr maneck, who will only obey advice from the UHJ
> when it suits you. Yet at the same time you both use other official
> UHJ letters to beat other Baha'is into submission to both yours and Dr
> maneck's bully boy tactics, so as to rule as top defenders of Bahaism
> on TRB.
I don't make a habit of reading other people's mail. I read what is
addressed to me, and conduct myself accordingly.
> Making friends with Karen & Dermod is part of that sneaky AO agenda.
>
Know your own agenda.
- Mr. Bad
Mr. Bad Judgement
Steve Marshall wrote:
Yeah! Don't let George catch you chatting up Dermod or Karen, or he
might get you pegged as a bad bahoooooveyey, too, right after Susan and me.
- Mr. Bad Bahooovey'i
Mr. Bad Judgement
Steve Marshall wrote:
Hi Steve!
I'm lost. I'm glad I found you. Though, I suspect, that as a fun
loving guy, you will not show this guy the way, at least we'll have a
laugh while I am lost.
- Mr. Bad
Cal E. Rollins
I'll buy that. Some of the worse perceived "fundies" on this list (I
call them "funnies") would think nothing of gossip and soul-killing
backbitting despite what the Author of the Faith explicitely says about
their fate. It's like they've never heard of Death. Yet they love to
pounce on insignificant, fun sins of folk. Can you understand them? I
sure can't. --Cal
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
> in article c4ih7d$2hrrjl$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad
> Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
>
>
>>Dermod would like to think that he is being called spiritually
>>corrosive. More likely, the quotation was inserted for Jim's benefit -
>>_if_ Jim finds Dermod, Karen, Juan, or Nima, to be insincere, _then_
>>they may be spiritually corrosive to him.
>
>
> Five years ago Dr Susan Maneck, even wrote herself to the house
> telling them she believed it was "spiritually corrosive" to continue
> dialogue with the likes of Karen and Dermod **who have shown a fixed
> antagonism to the Faith**, so why is she still doing so five years
> later? Would you not agree she is a hypocrite for not following
> through the advice she has written in her own letter?
>
I feel like I have explained this.
>
> Dr Maneck said:
> " However, to continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed
> antagonism to the Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to
> any ideas other than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the
> Bahá'ís who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually
> corrosive."
> http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_academic_methodologies.html
Do you really suppose this really Dr. Maneck speaking here, and not the
Universal House of Justice?
How do your get by with such comprehension skills?
- Mr. Bad
Cal E. Rollins
Which leads to an obvious question. Do the terraces and gardens at the
World Centre us pig, cow, horse, or human dung during the fertilizing
process? Do we take our cue from the collective farms around Israel or
do we go our own way? Is pilgrimage closed during the fertilizing
season? --Cal
Rod
Snip
> You are exactly right -- the fundies on Beliefnet totally ignored the
> advice from the UHJ on Internet interactions,
Dear Mrs Bacquet....I find your analysis selective and narrow...
the Baha'i apologists on Bnut ignored not only "UHJ advice"
but every principle of the faith they professed to espouse...in this
they have only been exceeded by the Baha'i apologists of TRB.
> even when it was brought to their attention.
Failed to span a nanno second.
> Obedience to the UHJ is really given more
> lip-service than it is translated into action.
In the context of online discussion- I repeat-
all Baha'i principles are given no more than "lip
service". It is, to the fundamentalist/apologist,
no more than a 'game'....and a game played
without rules, principles or ethics of any merit.
When cornered/exposed they simply upturn
the board (cut and/or ignore the argument)
and resort to killfile.
I am yet to encounter the online Baha'i
apologist who can muster and sustain a
debate on central issues without engaging
in the Baha'i Technique and/or cut and run
killfile.
Online Baha'i apologists are devoid of intellectual
and ethical ability.....the evidence is overwhelming.
> Fundamentalists, in general, are champion pickers-
> and-choosers, while claiming to be
> preserving the "true faith".
Indeed....and they will ignore all repeated pertinent
points and questions and "pick and choose" the most
spurious/peripheral aspect or engage in all manner of
trite and evasive non answers. It has, for the apologists
like Pat and Susan, become so ingrained and habitual
they have lost sight completely of all they sought/thought
to defend.
> I think it's human nature, to some extent -- we all,
> instinctively, treat some scriptural commands as being
> more important than others. The difference between
> liberals and conservatives often comes down to which
> ones.
I agree...and would propose that the prevailing liberal
commands of greatest importance are those that relate to
'deeds' above 'words'....in that they will not (generally)
sacrifice 'principles' when dishing out 'words'.
The fundamentalists have demonstrated they believe
'unity' is more important than all else and will sacrifice
any and all principles to maintain a united front against
spiritually corrosive non persons...the latter being 'fair
game' (no rules/principles apply).
> However, in Susan and Pat's case -- which I believe is where all this
> started -- I think they simply don't think that Secretariat letter
> represents a general call to shun.
The last nine words in the above passage are superfluous..
> Clearly, Jim didn't either.
Jim....poor lost soul that he is....made a (great number of) sincere but
ultimately futile attempts to examine Baha'i culture and build bridges
of understanding.......he was last seen departing with the red sight dot
of Susans "Agitation against the Institutions" targeting his head.
> However, in the copy I got, the writer of the email most certainly did,
> and he's a high muckety-muck.
Most 'Baha'i speak' is pretty much open to interpretation or 'read
between the lines'.......this one is crystal clear as to who ought
be shunned.
(Which makes one wonder why the named miscreants are still
being "picked and chosen" by the fundo's to communicate with...
perhaps the former have gone soft? ;-)
> His whole purpose in forwarding that
> letter was to warn someone off us. And, it would take some real
> convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
> talk to us.
And the boards are monitored and Big Baha'i is watching.
;-)
Rod.
Cal E. Rollins
Well if the Mafia didn't think much of you, I assure you they'd remove
the cause of their low opinion. The John Birch Society just does a lot
of lipping off with no action. Now lots of your fellow Baha'i scholars
don't think highly of you either, but that doesn't stop you. Nor should
it. You have said you don't think highly of some of them either. So
it's tit for tat? Right?
By the way, I don't agree with Baldrick. I'd think highly of you if I
were to fall into a trench and watch you spanning it as you slithered
along escaping the ever-encroaching light. --Cal
Steve Marshall
>I'm lost. I'm glad I found you. Though, I suspect, that as a fun
>loving guy, you will not show this guy the way, at least we'll have a
>laugh while I am lost.
That sounds suitably sin-covering to me, not that I want to make a
judgement call on it, or anything.
Adelard Rubangura
proving Susan's point. Too bad that you don't see it.
Peace,
Adelard
Dermod Ryder
"Adelard Rubangura" <Ade_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e1f0b52.04040...@posting.google.com...
> Rod, just read again your posting you just posted. You are really
> proving Susan's point. Too bad that you don't see it.
G'way and ask me arse!
This coming from one who thinks that Mugabe is the Mother Theresa of Africa!
Get a grip on your cacks, Addledhead!
Dermod Ryder
> and he's a high muckety-muck.
Would that be greater than, lesser than or roughly equivalent to a "feckin'
gobshite?"
PS I'm still at what I was at last night!
Dermod Ryder
"Mr. Bad Judgement" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:c4mnov$2jovbs$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Baldrick wrote:
>
> > in article c4ih7d$2hrrjl$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad
> > Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
> > " However, to continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed
> > antagonism to the Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to
> > any ideas other than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the
> > Bahá'ís who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually
> > corrosive."
> > http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_academic_methodologies.html
>
> Do you really suppose this really Dr. Maneck speaking here, and not the
> Universal House of Justice?
>
> How do your get by with such comprehension skills?
Very easily!
It's everybody else who suffers the consequences.
Karen Bacquet
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> news:406DFF11...@tco.net...
>
>>However, in the copy I got, the writer of the email most certainly did,
>>and he's a high muckety-muck.
>
>
> Would that be greater than, lesser than or roughly equivalent to a "feckin'
> gobshite?"
Oh, worse -- a "feckin' gobshite" with power.
>
> PS I'm still at what I was at last night!
Go get 'em, tiger!
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
Susan Maneck
>Five years ago Dr Susan Maneck, even wrote herself to the house
>telling them she believed it was "spiritually corrosive" to continue
>dialogue with the likes of Karen and Dermod
Try again. I didn't know Karen and Dermod five years ago. And I didn't say
anything to the house about spiritual corrosion period.
>**who have shown a fixed
>antagonism to the Faith**,
LOL. You really should learn to distinguish between the House of Justice and
myself.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Susan Maneck
>started -- I think they simply don't think that Secretariat letter
>represents a general call to shun.
Dear Karen,
If I had *personally* gotten that letter from the World Centre I would have
been inclined to take it much more seriously and written the Secretariat back
asking for clarification. Of course, Jim did that but he is not altogether
clear in his questions.
>However, in the copy I got, the writer of the email most certainly did,
>and he's a high muckety-muck. His whole purpose in forwarding that
>letter was to warn someone off us.
Most specifically it was to warn someone off of contacting Nima regarding the
Azalis. That is rather understandable.
>And, it would take some real
>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
>talk to us.
Did you mean to say that?
warmest, Susan
Karen Bacquet
>>and he's a high muckety-muck. His whole purpose in forwarding that
>>letter was to warn someone off us.
>
>
> Most specifically it was to warn someone off of contacting Nima regarding the
> Azalis. That is rather understandable.
And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
in the same boat. I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
appreciated by them, or even noticed. Baha'is online notice, but I
don't think the big boys do.
But that's o.k.; I'm not moderate because I think the administration
will believe I'm nicer than the tough guys. I do things the way I think
I ought to. I actually don't expect that the administration will think
I'm anything but horrible.
>
>
>>And, it would take some real
>>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
>>talk to us.
>
>
> Did you mean to say that?
No -- look at Steve's response to that post, and my response to him. I
goofed -- I meant, of course, that I believe that the UHJ *doesn't* want
Baha'is talking to us, and it would take some real persuasion for me to
believe otherwise.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Randy Burns
>
>
> And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
> distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
> actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
> as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
> when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
> in the same boat. I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
> appreciated by them, or even noticed. Baha'is online notice, but I
> don't think the big boys do.
They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous then Nima.
At least they have the ability to recognize that much. Obviously Nima does
as well, thus the professional jealousy.
> But that's o.k.; I'm not moderate because I think the administration
> will believe I'm nicer than the tough guys. I do things the way I think
> I ought to.
This makes it even worse, especially in the eyes of the top echelon of the
AO. There is nothing worse then someone with genuine integrity. I will
never forget reading about the secret meetings in the Kremlin when Pasternak
won the Nobel Prize. Everwhere there were meetings about the "non-person"
who as far as the Soviets were concerned did not even exist. He was the
most important person in the entire Soviet Union.
People of the lie fear simple honesty most of all.
Cheers, Randy
Karen Bacquet
Randy Burns wrote:
> "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> news:406F9AAC...@tco.net...
>
>>
>>And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
>>distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
>>actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
>>as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
>>when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
>>in the same boat. I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
>>appreciated by them, or even noticed. Baha'is online notice, but I
>>don't think the big boys do.
>
>
> They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous then Nima.
> At least they have the ability to recognize that much.
Dear Randy,
I really haven't had any indication that they think that. I have known
people online that think so -- and I myself think so, at least for the
sort of battle I'm fighting. I decided very early on that the way to
win against Baha'i fundamentalists is to be a better Baha'i than they
are. In fact, if I'm not, I've already lost the war without firing a shot.
Obviously Nima does
> as well, thus the professional jealousy.
Why would he be jealous? We aren't in competition; in fact, our aims
are completely different.
>
>
>>But that's o.k.; I'm not moderate because I think the administration
>>will believe I'm nicer than the tough guys. I do things the way I think
>>I ought to.
>
>
> This makes it even worse, especially in the eyes of the top echelon of the
> AO. There is nothing worse then someone with genuine integrity. I will
> never forget reading about the secret meetings in the Kremlin when Pasternak
> won the Nobel Prize. Everwhere there were meetings about the "non-person"
> who as far as the Soviets were concerned did not even exist. He was the
> most important person in the entire Soviet Union.
>
> People of the lie fear simple honesty most of all.
But, Randy, I don't think they see me as having integrity -- at best, I
am deluded, misguided or whatever. I *can't* have integrity if I'm a
critic of the Faith -- they'd never let themselves believe that I can.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
>
>
Rod
> Rod, just read again your posting you just posted.
No need...I know exactly what I wrote and why.
You don't do 'irony' do you shit for brains?
>You are really proving Susan's point.
No...you are proving mine (thank you ;-).
Like most pseudo spiritual Baha'is you turn a blind eye
to the most foul and malicious obscene false allegations-
"cyberstalking" and are affronted by the consequent open
honest expression of contempt for such behaviour in frank
terms.
Susan is a bitch....a lying bitch....I can, will and have explained
my reasons for making such an assertion.
Susan alleges I have committed the criminal act of "cyberstalking"
....being a bitch she has not, can not and will not explain or justify
her bogus assertion.
> Too bad that you don't see it.
What I see, once more and quite clearly, is one arsewhipe Baha'i
fundamentalist turning a blind eye to the abhorrent behaviour of another
arsewhipe fundamentalist Baha'i....all in the name of arsewhipe
fundamentalist
Baha'i tribal 'unity'. You will condone any shitfull behaviour as long
as it is conducted in the name of defending the faith...in doing so you
make mockery of every principle you purport to uphold.
You think my swearing was unconsidered?... not deliberate and to the point?
Fuck you too dickhead.
>
> Peace,
> Adelard
Rod
>
>
> Baldrick wrote:
>
> > in article c4ih7d$2hrrjl$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad
> > Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 2/4/04 3:07 am:
> > So you and Dr Maneck are extra special *AMERICAN* Baha'is who have
> > promoted yourselves over and above all other Baha'is of the world who
> > use TRB?
>
> I'm not saying that.
No...Baldrick is asking a question with clear implication...and rightly so.
The American online Baha'i appologists (yourself included) have proven
yourselves (time and again) to consider yourselves the self appointed
defenders of the Baha'i faith.
Clearly you collectively believe you are entitled to lie, cheat, fabricate,
backflip and slander against anyone you deem to be outside your tribe.
> I'm saying, that unlike you, I survived my first
> 100 days on TRB w/o losing my religion,
Indeed.....your 'religion' is the practice of aiding and abetting others
as they drive folk out of their religion....and you certainly haven't
lost that.
> and I'm saying that in your
> first 100 days, to include your numerous and well documented personal
> attacks on people,
As well documented and extensive as those Susan has made?
Your hypocrisy is without limit KKKohli.
Rod
Dermod Ryder <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4npse$2klut9$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think he's just upset that I dared challenge the authority,
stature, integrity and assumed infallibility of an Ass Professor ;-)
Either that or he's looking to start yet another argument
he is incapable of following to logical conclusion ;-)
>
Rod
> when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
> in the same boat.
Clearly and without question this is the case...as reflected and exemplified
by the online fundamentalist appologist/defenders who make (and will
tollerate) no distinction between the individual critics and specific
objections.
All (inside or outside the faith) are lumped together as spiritualy
corrosive
enemies of the faith.
> I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
> appreciated by them, or even noticed.
Have they (National, Regional, 'Cluster' or local) ever contacted you?
Have they ever reached out (online or off) in 'loving Baha'i fellowship'
to hear and consider your concerns/issues?
Proof is in pudding....they do not give a rats arse what you think
or how moderately you present it.
You went public.......that makes you eeeeeeeeeeeeevil ;-)
> Baha'is online notice,
Do they? Are they more honest in their responses? More
forthcomming? Less evasive? Do they respond in kind?
I look back to being an online Baha'i newbie and the
polite moderation of my posts/questions.....twas a complete
waste of time...every issue raised was met with evasion, lies
and rank stupidity.
> but I don't think the big boys do.
They wouldn't know if a bus was up em.
> But that's o.k.; I'm not moderate because I think the administration
> will believe I'm nicer than the tough guys. I do things the way I think
> I ought to. I actually don't expect that the administration will think
> I'm anything but horrible.
I believe one of the central/influential factors is that you presented
a new/unfamiliar phenomena- someone who has resigned but claims
status of unenrolled Baha'i. In such a position (outsider) your moderate
views are treated with a similar degree of respect as a non Baha'i critic.
Such tolerance is not extended to enrolled Baha'is who speak out in
public....just look at how moderate Jims bridge building efforts have been
and how he has been targeted for them.
> >>And, it would take some real
> >>convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is didn't
> >>talk to us.
> >
> >
> > Did you mean to say that?
>
> No -- look at Steve's response to that post, and my response to him. I
> goofed -- I meant, of course, that I believe that the UHJ *doesn't* want
> Baha'is talking to us, and it would take some real persuasion for me to
> believe otherwise.
I maintain Susans question is a classic example of how posts/issues are
ignored
and the response (if forthcoming at all) heads straight for the peripheral,
inane
irrelevant.
It matters not if one is polite moderate or plays hardball...the response is
invariably
devoid of substance or integrity.
Rod
Rod
Randy Burns <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:QNNbc.10268$s34....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> People of the lie fear simple honesty most of all.
Indeed.....and if the message is simple/straightforward
and open/honest enough the non person messenger
will be killfiled ;-)
(Comrade Karen has some duckwork to do yet ;-)
Baldrick
wrote on 4/4/04 6:18 am:
>
>
>>> and he's a high muckety-muck. His whole purpose in forwarding that
>>> letter was to warn someone off us.
>>
>>
>> Most specifically it was to warn someone off of contacting Nima
regarding the
>> Azalis. That is rather understandable.
>
> And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
> distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
> actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
> as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
> when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
> in the same boat.
This was **ALL** George Fleming was trying to point out on Baha'i
Studies, but Susan Maneck retwisted it (in her own specially gifted
way) to suit her own agenda so she could practice *Selective
obedience* whenever it suited her. IE: keep up her vindictive hate
towards Juan and Fred and play the love bombing game with Karen. Her
anger towards me was because this new baha'i on Baha i Studies had the
cheek to read her tea cup for her, and expose the many faces of Dr
Susan Maneck. All other Baha'is on BS were wimps and she kept them in
there place as a right little Dr Netiquette Nazi
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame18.html
Baldrick
I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
> appreciated by them, or even noticed. Baha'is online notice, but I
> don't think the big boys do.
>
> But that's o.k.; I'm not moderate because I think the administration
> will believe I'm nicer than the tough guys. I do things the way I think
> I ought to. I actually don't expect that the administration will think
> I'm anything but horrible.
>
>>
>>
>>> And, it would take some real
>>> convincing to persuade me that the UHJ would just as soon Baha'is
didn't
>>> talk to us.
>>
>>
>> Did you mean to say that?
>
> No -- look at Steve's response to that post, and my response to him. I
> goofed -- I meant, of course, that I believe that the UHJ *doesn't* want
> Baha'is talking to us, and it would take some real persuasion for me to
> believe otherwise.
>
Baldrick
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/4/04 7:19 am:
> They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous then Nima.
Only in different historical concepts of the faith. Both are dangerous
in the eyes of the UHJ and the AO
Karen's easy to read fault finding administration essays (since the
UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European &
US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to Iranian
BIGS ( who would be well read in the Quran) his knowledge and
interest in finding out more about the earlier part of the Faith in
its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
Interesting how Susan sees both of them differently. On boggles on the
mindset of Dr maneck. All comments welcome. Baldrick
Susan Maneck
>distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
>actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet".
That maybe. But what raised his alarm was Nima's posting this guys personal
correspondence requesting information regarding the Azalis. Also, keep in mind
that whatever this individuals views, the Counsellor he was writing to
apparently did *not* see fit to ever convey the message to the individual in
question.
Susan Maneck
>They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous then Nima.
Randy,
That may well be true. Karen certainly has more credibility. But the major
reason her name was mentioned in the letter in question was because Jim had
named her when he wrote them.
Susan Maneck
>> as well, thus the professional jealousy.
>
>Why would he be jealous?
Because Paul claims to be a Karenist and not a Nimaist. ;-}
Susan Maneck
>UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European &
>US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to Iranian
>BIGS ( who would be well read in the Quran) his knowledge and
>interest in finding out more about
>the earlier part of the Faith in
>its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
Of course it wouldn't occur to George that there might be a distinction between
someone who sticks to the facts as they know them and someone who makes up
slanders and lies against even his former friends, who claims to be He Whom God
would Make Manifest, then says it was all a joke after he fails to get a
following, then comes back later claiming to the leader of the Azalis.
But of course we can't expect George to know the difference between a genuinely
honest and nice person and a lying jerk. Afterall, what does he know about
honesty and fairplay?
Susan Maneck
>This was **ALL** George Fleming was trying to point out on Baha'i
>Studies, but Susan Maneck retwisted it
What you don't seem to understand, George, is that Baha'i Studies is a private
list with its own rules which you could not abide by and Karen could. And you
went much further than that, putting up quotes from the Guardian suggesting she
was a Covenant breaker.
>All other Baha'is on BS were wimps and she kept them in
>there place as a right little Dr Netiquette Nazi
>http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame18.html
Grow up, George.
But you are right about one thing. There are cases when it makes no sense
whatsoever to dialogue with those who have a fixed antagonism towards the
Faith.
PLONK back into the kill file.
Adelard Rubangura
> news:3e1f0b52.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > Rod, just read again your posting you just posted. You are really
> > proving Susan's point. Too bad that you don't see it.
>
> G'way and ask me arse!
>
> This coming from one who thinks that Mugabe is the Mother Theresa of Africa!
So, now you read my mind! I didn't know you have special knowldege
:-).
Dermod, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Mugabe is
Politician
while Mother Theresa is not.
But if you compare Mugabe and Blair instead, you will get your
answer. Won't you?
Please, answer me this question: When you finished reading this
posting, tell me if you would like their political plan and economic
agenda to applied to your country?
Now Let's see their deeds below and compare by yourself!
I have showed you this below, but it seems you don't care about the
imperialist agenda when it comes to the third world countries. I
really don't know about you.
Here again below are the Thugs of the MDC and their imperialist
economic agenda which are being supported and financed by Blair. I see
their economic agenda as nothing but a crime against humanity they
want to perpetrate.
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html
"The MDC appointed an official of the Confederation of Zimbabwe
Industries, Eddie Cross, as its Secretary of Economic Affairs.
In a speech delivered shortly after his appointment, Cross articulated
the MDC economic plan.
1) First of all, we believe in the free market.
2) We do not support price control.
3) We are in favor of reduced levels of taxation.
4) We are going to fast track privatization.
5) All fifty government parastatals will be privatized within a
two-year
frame, but we are going far beyond that.
6) We are going to privatize many of the functions of government.
7) We are going to privatize the Central Statistics Office.
8) We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery
system.
But in contrast, look what Mugabe's Party says:
"A press release issued by ZANU-PF presents a contrasting vision for
Zimbabwe. "For ZANU-PF, the central question was and still is who
benefits from the management of the economy? The answer is simple; it
must be the broad masses of our people. That is where we differ with
the MDC and with other parties. They want to benefit the employers and
the capitalists. We say no, no, no."
Peace,
Adelard
Paul Hammond
>
> Nima, Fred, Rod, Cal Starr, myself and others cannot all be wrong.
Why not? The only one with any integrity in that list is
Rod.
All the rest of you all get together off line to decide
what your latest evidenceless conspiracy theory is going
to be on a regular basis.
Paul
Karen Bacquet
>
>
>> I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
>>appreciated by them, or even noticed.
>
>
> Have they (National, Regional, 'Cluster' or local) ever contacted you?
> Have they ever reached out (online or off) in 'loving Baha'i fellowship'
> to hear and consider your concerns/issues?
No, and actually I wouldn't really expect them to. They only contact
people who are still on the rolls, and then it's because you're in
trouble, not an intent to listen and/or respond to "concerns".
Remember, the letter to Steve used just about the exact wording you did
-- i.e. "we'd like to discuss your concerns". Now, had Steve met with
them, what do you think would have happened? The purpose of such
meetings is to convince a person of their wrongness, so they've either
got to shut up, or leave the Faith. And "Anything you say can and will
be used against you" in a situation like that.
They know what my concerns are; it's not like I've kept them a secret.
If they ever did make changes based on them, they'd never admit it.
Because, Rod, what you say isn't nearly the issue as much as how you say
it, and who you say it to.
>
> Proof is in pudding....they do not give a rats arse what you think
> or how moderately you present it.
> You went public.......that makes you eeeeeeeeeeeeevil ;-)
Yep, going public is a major sin. Once you leave the rolls, you are
supposed to forget you were ever a Baha'i and never mention it again.
They tried to get Eric to take his website down, because, after all,
since he was leaving, there was no reason for him to critique the Faith
anymore. They asked Juan for his translations, since he "wouldn't need
them anymore", when he left. They really have no concept of what it is
like to leave the Faith. An assumption is made that it must not have
ever meant anything to you in the first place. Any hurt, anger, or
emotional distress is just taken as a sign of your spiritual problems.
That sort of heartlessness is one of the major things I'm fighting. I
consider the support that I give to disillusioned Baha'is on UB the most
important thing I do -- more important than articles, exposes, and
sparring with fundies.
I'm probably not halfway done with my survey on exit stories yet, but I
counted the ones I have so far, and problems/disagreements with the
administration or its policies are a much bigger factor than I would
have predicted. A surprising number of people leave under fire -- and
I'm not talking about the major cases here, but people who show up to
tell their stories, then don't do much else. My prediction was that
aspects of Baha'i culture (overemphasis on teaching, lack of
spirituality etc.) would have been the top category. However, what I've
got is very preliminary; we'll see how the numbers hold up.
>
> I believe one of the central/influential factors is that you presented
> a new/unfamiliar phenomena- someone who has resigned but claims
> status of unenrolled Baha'i. In such a position (outsider) your moderate
> views are treated with a similar degree of respect as a non Baha'i critic.
I'm part of a phenomenon that began with the Talisman crackdown, of
people resigning, but still claiming belief in Baha'u'llah, or of
declaring after their resignation that they are still Baha'is. However,
I've probably been the most assertive about having an unenrolled Baha'i
identity. At one point, that in itself was very controversial -- but I
don't get hassled about it online as much anymore.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Karen Bacquet
Susan Maneck wrote:
>>The writer of that email made no
>>distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
>>actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet".
>
>
> That maybe. But what raised his alarm was Nima's posting this guys personal
> correspondence requesting information regarding the Azalis. Also, keep in mind
> that whatever this individuals views, the Counsellor he was writing to
> apparently did *not* see fit to ever convey the message to the individual in
> question.
You're a little confused. What Nima posted was his request that Nima
cool things a bit. He asked me about Nima's info about the Azalis.
You're sure the message wasn't passed on? On another forum, he included
me in the ranks of the "enemies of the Faith".
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Karen Bacquet
Hey, your "take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut" is worthy of being
added to the liturgy. :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
>
Baldrick
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 4/4/04 5:55 pm:
>> Karen's easy to read fault finding administration essays (since the
>> UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European
&
>> US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to
Iranian
>> BIGS ( who would be well read in the Quran) his knowledge and
>> interest in finding out more about
>> the earlier part of the Faith in
>> its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
>
> Of course it wouldn't occur to George that there might be a distinction
> between
> someone who sticks to the facts as they know them and someone who makes up
> slanders and lies against even his former friends, who claims to be He Whom
> God
> would Make Manifest, then says it was all a joke after he fails to get a
> following, then comes back later claiming to the leader of the Azalis.
>
> But of course we can't expect George to know the difference between a
> genuinely
> honest and nice person and a lying jerk. Afterall, what does he know about
> honesty and fairplay?
I think readers would agree, There is a difference between a (single)
lying jerk who abuses honesty and fairplay and a lying jerk of a
religion of (5 million followers) whose administration abuses almighty
God, honesty and fair play.
Baldrick
Susan Maneck
>cool things a bit. He asked me about Nima's info about the Azalis.
Dear Karen,
Okay, a bunch of other material regarding what Nima was saying about the Azalis
were posted elsewhere by this guy.
>You're sure the message wasn't passed on?
Yes, at least it wasn't at the time we had been discussing it. Prior to that
the only person who had been advising this guy that it was probably not a good
idea to correspond with Nima was yours truly. I checked on this without getting
too specific. Whether he has received anything since that time, I wouldn't
know.
On another forum, he included
>me in the ranks of the "enemies of the Faith".
Was that recent?
Karen Bacquet
>
> Yes, at least it wasn't at the time we had been discussing it. Prior to that
> the only person who had been advising this guy that it was probably not a good
> idea to correspond with Nima was yours truly. I checked on this without getting
> too specific. Whether he has received anything since that time, I wouldn't
> know.
>
> On another forum, he included
>
>>me in the ranks of the "enemies of the Faith".
>
>
> Was that recent?
Yes.
Karen
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
> in article 406F9AAC...@tco.net, Karen Bacquet at bac...@tco.net
> wrote on 4/4/04 6:18 am:
>
>
>(snip)
>>
>>And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
>>distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
>>actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
>>as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
>>when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
>>in the same boat.
>
>
> This was **ALL** George Fleming was trying to point out on Baha'i
> Studies, but Susan Maneck retwisted it (in her own specially gifted
> way) to suit her own agenda so she could practice *Selective
> obedience* whenever it suited her. IE: keep up her vindictive hate
> towards Juan and Fred and play the love bombing game with Karen. Her
> anger towards me was because this new baha'i on Baha i Studies had the
> cheek to read her tea cup for her, and expose the many faces of Dr
> Susan Maneck. All other Baha'is on BS were wimps and she kept them in
> there place as a right little Dr Netiquette Nazi
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame18.html
I certainly agree that George Fleming, and vinidictive hate, have a lot
to do with this topic. There are a lot of Baha'is who contribute on
TRB, but George Fleming sees this letter to Jim, as only being
applicable to Susan Maneck, and Pat Kohli. My best guess is that it is
all due to his vindictive hadtred towards them.
- Mr. Bad
Susan Maneck
>> On another forum, he included
>>
>>>me in the ranks of the "enemies of the Faith".
>>
>>
>> Was that recent?
>
>Yes.
>
Which forum?
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
Susan was talking about you and Nima, not just one person, and I don't
think Angzalian, or whatever your religion is, has 5 million followers,
even if you do count various sock puppets.
- Mr. Bad
Baldrick
Judgement at kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 4/4/04 8:46 pm:
If it was more than one person why did Susan not say jerks, instead of
a singular *jerk*. No chance of you saying you had a freudian slip? At
your work again KKKohli?
and I don't
> think Angzalian, or whatever your religion is, has 5 million followers,
> even if you do count various sock puppets.
I was referring to the Haifan Bahai Cult which says, it has 5 million
members. But go tell that figure to the marines.
Baldrick
>
Seegar
>Of course it wouldn't occur to George that there might be a distinction between
>someone who sticks to the facts as they know them and someone who makes up
>slanders and lies against even his former friends, who claims to be He Whom God
>would Make Manifest, then says it was all a joke after he fails to get a
>following, then comes back later claiming to the leader of the Azalis.
Susan,
As the gang of four letter has shown, George is not the only one
unable and/or unwilling to make a distinction. That letter should have
found the wastebasket and not the post.
Peace,
Chris
Jim Habegger
wrote:
>I
>consider the support that I give to disillusioned Baha'is on UB the most
>important thing I do
I feel the same way. I'm really glad you're doing that.
Jim
Baldrick
sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 12:05 am:
First time I ever heard a Baha'i in Good Standing say he wanted to
throw a truthful letter which contained advice from the infallible
Universal House in the waste basket? Had it been a forgery (which I
admit at first I thought it was) I would have agreed with Chris. But
the contents of this letter is 100% true, therefore why would BIGS
want truthful (documented evidence) (enclosed below) thrown in the
wastebasket?
Baldrick
>
> Peace,
>
> Chris
>
From: Dermod Ryder <m...@privacy.net>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: MondayJanuary 6191020042002 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: Will any ex bahai write a book about leaving bahaism?
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040119152538...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >Well, Susan, I've had word that I am counted among the "spritually
> >corrosive" by Haifa and you yourself have said that I haven't been
> >"insidious" or prone to calumny.
>
> Well, I'd want to see documentation of that before I would assume it to be
> true. But as I've said before, your articles are all the more damaging
> because they don't resort to those kinds of things.
Your wish is my command: -
_________________________________________________
"Ms. Karen Bacquet, Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr.
Dermod Ryder, all of whom are no longer members of the Baha\'i
community, have long exhibited highly critical attitudes toward the
institutions of the Faith. It is clear from various postings on the
Internet that Ms. Bacquet manifests a deep-seated antagonism toward
the institutions of the Faith. Mr. Glaysher and Mr. Hazini have both,
over a period of time, taken a number of actions inimical to the
Faith. They both seem bent on their own personal campaigns to
undermine the integrity of the Teachings and institutions of the Cause
in the minds of persons unwise enough to take them seriously.
In cases of inveterate hostility to the Cause, the Universal House of
Justice has advised:
The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters
vital to
humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we encounter
minds that
are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Baha'u'llah
urges
that we leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the
opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths
which He
teaches. In words written at the direction of the Guardian, regarding
a
situation similar to, though much less serious than, the present one,
"...the friends should be advised to just leave these people alone,
for
their influence can be nothing but negative and destructive."
With loving Baha'i greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
-------------------------------------------------
Now, what gives these people the right or the capacity to judge
whether our
minds are closed or that we are "darkened by evident malice?"
AFAIC the gloves are now off - diagonal steam trappery has been
resurrected
and "Grumpies" is far too kind a word for those whence sprang this
malevolence.
I'll show them what to do with their "Loving Bahai Greetings!"
Rod
Baldrick <baldri...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9b91a665.04040...@posting.google.com...
> in article 9fd170tf8tbha126i...@4ax.com, Seegar at
> sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 12:05 am:
>
> > On 04 Apr 2004 16:55:44 GMT, sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> > As the gang of four letter has shown, George is not the only one
> > unable and/or unwilling to make a distinction. That letter should have
> > found the wastebasket and not the post.
>
> First time I ever heard a Baha'i in Good Standing say he wanted to
> throw a truthful letter which contained advice from the infallible
> Universal House in the waste basket? Had it been a forgery (which I
> admit at first I thought it was) I would have agreed with Chris. But
> the contents of this letter is 100% true, therefore why would BIGS
> want truthful (documented evidence) (enclosed below) thrown in the
> wastebasket?
Because it conflicts with their addiction to lie, misrepresentation, evasion
and slander in their self appointed task of defending the faith from enemies
they themselves generate or invent.
Rod
Good thing that with a single reference to Mugabe Dermod provided
you with an evasive 'out' to your hypocrisy and duplicity ;-)
Perhaps Dermod can't read minds....but I can ;-)......
"Either that or he's looking to start yet another argument
he is incapable of following to logical conclusion ;-)"
Adelard Rubangura <Ade_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e1f0b52.0404...@posting.google.com...
Rod
I can but bow and pay homage at the feet of a master ;-)
(Alas....having been a Baha'i....I don't believe I could ever
convert to Karenism....you lack the fundamentalists to
provide sufficient entertainment value ;-)
Seegar
You certainly act the fool and bumble around here, but is it an act,
hmmm? So this is how you've felt all along, and you here admit freely
in agreement that this letter is truthful with regard to your friends
Fred and Nima! I am beginning to think that maybe Dermod was right
all along about you in smelling you out as a mole! I remember Dermod
saying a mischievous smile was the result of mentioning your name to a
Baha'i in NI. Certainly gives pause for reflection!
I also note your tendency to snitch to the AO on those who, through
independent thought, might have reservations about certain things that
have transpired. You did it to others and me as well. You certainly
have no compunctions in moderating your outlandish, foolish and
unsupportable stands. You consistently take the most illogical
positions. Maybe you are trying to tarnish critics by association as
Dermod has mentioned. After all, can anyone really be as stupid as you
have proved yourself to be time and again? Who's really pulling your
strings, and whose payroll are you on? WE SHOULD BE TOLD!
If your question is sincere, which is highly in doubtful, you may find
your answer and my reasons and thoughts about this letter here:
On 4 Apr 2004 20:56:12 -0700, baldri...@yahoo.co.uk (Baldrick)
wrote:
Seegar
<sendither...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You certainly
>have no compunctions in moderating your outlandish, foolish and
>unsupportable stands.
Correction:
You certainly have no compunctions in *not* moderating your
Baldrick
sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 6:13 am:
> Baldrick,
>
> You certainly act the fool and bumble around here, but is it an act,
> hmmm? So this is how you've felt all along, and you here admit freely
> in agreement that this letter is truthful with regard to your friends
> Fred and Nima! I am beginning to think that maybe Dermod was right
> all along about you in smelling you out as a mole! I remember Dermod
> saying a mischievous smile was the result of mentioning your name to a
> Baha'i in NI. Certainly gives pause for reflection!
Ahhhhhhhhhh Chris, that old ball game is long over, trying to mix it
with Dermod and I has gone long past its sell by date.
>
> I also note your tendency to snitch to the AO on those who, through
> independent thought, might have reservations about certain things that
> have transpired.
I never snitched in my life until fundamentalists Dr Maneck and Pat
Kohli
gave me the special AO snitch treatment here on TRB.
> You did it to others and me as well. You certainly
> have no compunctions in moderating your outlandish, foolish and
> unsupportable stands. You consistently take the most illogical
> positions.
Now I consider all Baha'is (including yourself and the Fundie quack
from Hong Kong) all on my snitching list. Like shooting ducks in a
barrel, everyone of you fundie creeps are fair game. Once I get the
e/mail address of your LSA's. What is good for the goose is good for
the Gander. You can thank Dr Maneck and Pat Kohli for that. Revenge is
sweet, but you Bahai cult sleaseballs dont like getting your own back
do you?
> Maybe you are trying to tarnish critics by association as
> Dermod has mentioned.
How come Dermod never took your advice and put the Gang of Four letter
in the wastebasket? The only one who has tarnished critics by
association is the letter from the House exposing certain fundie
Selective obedience on TRB. If the cap of hypocrisy fits Dr maneck &
Pat Kohli by their association with Karen and Dermod then they can
wear it. I didn't write the letter.
> After all, can anyone really be as stupid as you
> have proved yourself to be time and again? Who's really pulling your
> strings, and whose payroll are you on? WE SHOULD BE TOLD!
You have already declared your nine Imans in the House of Jaffa cakes
were the stupid ones for giving approval for that Gang of Four letter
to be sent to Jim. Did you not say it should be thrown in the
wastebasket?
>
> If your question is sincere, which is highly in doubtful, you may find
> your answer and my reasons and thoughts about this letter here:
Give me one good reason why I should reat your arrogant selfrighteous
reasons or thoughts as sincere?
Baldrick
Susan Maneck
>all along about you in smelling you out as a mole!
No way! If he is bumble or a fool he is now a dissident bumble and a fool.
Don't try and foist him back on us.
Baldrick
sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 7:02 am:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 05:13:54 GMT, Seegar
> <sendither...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You certainly
>> have no compunctions in moderating your outlandish, foolish and
>> unsupportable stands.
>
> Correction:
>
> You certainly have no compunctions in *not* moderating your
> outlandish, foolish and unsupportable stands.
You should send that advice to your wonderful infallible House of
jaffa cakes in Haifa. Did they not have "compunctions in *not*
moderating *their* outlandish, foolish and unsupportable stands" when
they sent that stupid Gang of Four letter to Jim, which you
recommended to be thrown in the wastebasket? They could at least have
deleted Karen & Dermod's names so as not to embarrass Dr Maneck and
Pat Kohli Baldrick
Freethought110
> On 2 Apr 2004 Baldrick wrote, and wrote, and wrote...:
> >On the one hand you and Dr Maneck shun Nima & Fred as
> >'Spiritually corrosive' bad guys. Yet on the other hand you are
> >defending Dermod and Karen as "non spirtually corrosive' good guy
> >buddies.
>
> Call me perverse (Nima frequently does!) but I've always found Susan
> and Pat's "disobedience" to be one of their more endearing qualities.
What else is new? You "liberals" are all rank sell-outs and bloody
quislings, as I observed some three years ago, and thank the good Lord
you will all go down together when the Titanic finally sinks.
Seegar
>>I am beginning to think that maybe Dermod was right
>>all along about you in smelling you out as a mole!
>
>No way! If he is bumble or a fool he is now a dissident bumble and a fool.
>Don't try and foist him back on us.
Susan,
The "us" is not you. Maybe some misguided local fundamentalist
schemers in his neck of the woods with an axe to grind? Haven't we
already heard that he mingles freely with the Baha'is in NI, despite
his record here on TRB? How does one change from calling all and
sundry CB's and then flip and take on such an opposite position so
quickly? And I don't think Dermods stories can be entirely discounted
that there are those of questionable character in that local. Just
look at the story that came out and was reported here of alleged wrong
doing by Brian Schellenberger? Not everyone is a saint amongst us,
duh. Are you sure you know of whom "us" comprises? How much is he
getting paid to make TRB look like a nuthouse, with him on the throne
as the Grand Poobah of nuts bare none? Riddle me this: where does he
go to silence critics who make any sense? He goes straight to and rats
out to the AO. The only ones he may want here by design are the ones
with credibility lacking after the AO boots off the rest.
Peace,
Chris
Seegar
AO on Baha'i Studies. A credible critic at that, Karen. He was
absolutely livid that she was allowed to post there. Unthinkingly, he
let it slip that he agrees that the letter is 100% truthful that his
friends are correctly described according to the gang of four letter.
Something doesn't smell right and it's coming from Baldricks
direction!
Peace,
Chris
Rod
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >> I doubt my more moderate stance is very much
> >>appreciated by them, or even noticed.
> >
> >
> > Have they (National, Regional, 'Cluster' or local) ever contacted you?
> > Have they ever reached out (online or off) in 'loving Baha'i fellowship'
> > to hear and consider your concerns/issues?
>
> No, and actually I wouldn't really expect them to.
Hell I would.....if for reasons of sound buisness management if nothing
more.
Clearly you are an individual of capacity and compassion, cabable of
analysing
and communicating the pertinant issues.....why ignore such human resources?
Why let them slip away or be driven out without ever asking or considering
why?
In the 'Bommyknocker' threads you will find three letters from the Oz NSA...
clearly they thought I was an individual of capacity as well (either that or
someone
served hash cookies)....yet when it came to the crunch they not only did not
seek
information they refused to respond to the concerns expressed.
Could have something to do with a 'culture of denial'? ;-)
> They only contact
> people who are still on the rolls, and then it's because you're in
> trouble, not an intent to listen and/or respond to "concerns".
Clearly and unarguably-Yes-......but why so....how does a 'religion'
that purports to 'love' get so quickly to the point at which it cannot
even muster or display 'common courtesy' or 'common sense'?
> Remember, the letter to Steve used just about the exact wording you did
> -- i.e. "we'd like to discuss your concerns".
Yes....and as I understand Steve has agreed to meet with the AO once
their 'concerns' about his 'concerns' are clearly articulated and form an
agenda *prior* to the meeting taking place. Not a big or unreasonable
ask- "You are asking for a meeting....please specify why".
This elemental of due process seems to have sent them into a tailspin of
indecisive inactivity.
> Now, had Steve met with them, what do you think would have happened?
Well....according to NZ custom and tradition Steve would have offered his
guests lamb....probably Shornbag...then all would remove their shoes in
favour
of the ceremonial indoor gumboots...tongs and pokers would be set on the
coals
in the Kiwi scull brazier and....oh.......not what you meant huh?.....
> The purpose of such
> meetings is to convince a person of their wrongness, so they've either
> got to shut up, or leave the Faith.
Yes.....I have had such a "social visit"......I was just a bit slow in
leaving the faith.
> And "Anything you say can and will be used against you" in a situation
like that.
I believe Steve intends to say "Shornbag".
> They know what my concerns are; it's not like I've kept them a secret.
No....and it's not like they have responded to your/my/anyones concerns...
other than with platitude, evasion or abuse.
> If they ever did make changes based on them, they'd never admit it.
Well.....that makes sense....afterall it is a religion based on love, truth,
unity
and reconciliation.....why let those factors get in the way of good old
dysfunctional
denial? ;-)
> Because, Rod, what you say isn't nearly the issue as much as how you say
> it, and who you say it to.
I don't believe either matters Karen....I spent a decade in the community
and
half that online being sweet as pie and as polite as a church mouse...the
evasion,
misrepresentation and innuendo did not cease or change.
Snip
> They really have no concept of what it is
> like to leave the Faith. An assumption is made that it must not have
> ever meant anything to you in the first place. Any hurt, anger, or
> emotional distress is just taken as a sign of your spiritual problems.
By my count Jim is the only online BIGS who has ever demonstrated
any empathy, sympathy, concern or attempted understanding and
reconciliation......even if you can think of one? two? three? others I
maintain it must be conceded the situation is fucked.
"My Faith right or wrong.....love it or leave it"
"Every sense of grievance, justified or unjustified, must be set aside
for the good of the Cause" SE.
No.....there are justified grievances that deserve and demand to be
heard......to ignore them is 'evil'.....evil being wilful ignorance- not
wanting to know.
> That sort of heartlessness is one of the major things I'm fighting.
If you are fighting for 'change'...Good luck....I think the battle is
lost.....the only reasonable prospect and responsibility is to forewarn
prospective Baha'is of what they are getting into.
> I
> consider the support that I give to disillusioned Baha'is on UB the most
> important thing I do --
I can not/will not challenge the validity of such a role...as a recipient of
such counselling and support I still owe a great debt....are you shure
you will not accept my first born? ;-)
> more important than articles, exposes, and
> sparring with fundies.
Here we differ....the 'Independent investigation of truth' entails and
demands seekers have every opportunity to see exactly what they are
potentially getting into. Theory/principles are one thing....but here on
TRB and on Bnut the dynamics and cosmology and culture of the
Baha'i community are played out in living colour.
Exposing the prevailing culture within Baha'i is preventative and aught
lead to fewer people becoming "disillusioned Baha'is".
I don't mind swearing at fundamentalist fruitloops in performance
of this community service....I know full well that 99.99% of my
countrymen would prefer to use, see or be exposed to 'foul language'
than the obscenity of lie, slander. evasion, platitude and hypocrisy
that prevails within Baha'i.
> I'm probably not halfway done with my survey on exit stories yet, but I
> counted the ones I have so far, and problems/disagreements with the
> administration or its policies are a much bigger factor than I would
> have predicted. A surprising number of people leave under fire -- and
> I'm not talking about the major cases here, but people who show up to
> tell their stories, then don't do much else. My prediction was that
> aspects of Baha'i culture (overemphasis on teaching, lack of
> spirituality etc.) would have been the top category. However, what I've
> got is very preliminary; we'll see how the numbers hold up.
I will be most interested in seeing the end result.
When I read your survey intent I ran a check over my reasons for
abandoning the Baha'i community....high(est?) on the list was the
betrayal of Banjo Clarke and his community and vision.
But here's another (stranger?) one to add to your survey results....
Remember those kids who cheated at games? The ones who never
counted properly in hide and seek or the ones who, confronted with
defeat at Chess/Monopoly would upturn the board in frustration?
That's what I see the Baha'i apologists doing online on a daily basis.
Cornered by a question?- Ignore it. Exposed in an argument?- Cut
it. Unable to muster a defence of stated position or behaviour?- Upturn
the board and killfile.
I hate cheats.....always have......must have something to do with my due
process obsession ;-)
To some considerable degree I left the Baha'i community because of the
demonstrable deficit in intellectual honesty and ethical capacity of
community
members.
All the best
Rod
Paul Hammond
But Balders, *that* means that the UHJ must be writing their
letters to Jim without reference to the expressed opinions
of Pat and Susan on trb - which means that your own observation
shoots your favourite conspiracy theory about them being
paid agents of the AO clean out of the water!
Oh Dear!
In future, do try to think before you open yer gob!
Paul
Paul Hammond
> wrote on 4/4/04 6:18 am:
>
> >
> >
> >>> letter was to warn someone off us.
> >>
> >>
> >> Most specifically it was to warn someone off of contacting Nima
> regarding the
> >> Azalis. That is rather understandable.
> > And me; he was talking to me, too. The writer of that email made no
> > distinction between the "nice" dissident and the "not-nice" one. The
> > actual phrase was "people like Nima Hazini and Karen Bacquet". As much
> > as I hate to agree with George on anything, I do believe he is right
> > when he says the administration sees all us critics as being pretty much
> > in the same boat.
>
> This was **ALL** George Fleming was trying to point out on Baha'i
> Studies,
Bullshit, bollocks and lies, you stupid little liar!
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article QNNbc.10268$s34....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
> randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/4/04 7:19 am:
>
> > They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous then Nima.
>
> Only in different historical concepts of the faith. Both are dangerous
> in the eyes of the UHJ and the AO
>
> Karen's easy to read fault finding administration essays (since the
> UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European &
> US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to Iranian
> BIGS ( who would be well read in the Quran)
Nima is most dangerous to himself, projecting an internet
persona of a raving lunatic with paranoid delusions
and delusions of grandeur.
> his knowledge and
> interest in finding out more about the earlier part of the Faith in
> its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
>
It's only a fool like you that he manages to fool, Splasher.
> Interesting how Susan sees both of them differently. On boggles on the
> mindset of Dr maneck. All comments welcome. Baldrick
That's "One" boggles, (and "at" the mindset. One cannot boggle
"on" something) Splasher. I bet you don't welcome
*this* comment.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> > Obviously Nima does
> >> as well, thus the professional jealousy.
> >
> >Why would he be jealous?
>
> Because Paul claims to be a Karenist and not a Nimaist. ;-}
>
You mean, you think Nima cares what I think? I'm
so touched!
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article 20040404125544...@mb-m16.aol.com, Susan Maneck
> at sma...@aol.com wrote on 4/4/04 5:55 pm:
>
> >> UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European
> &
> >> US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to
> Iranian
> >> interest in finding out more about
> >> the earlier part of the Faith in
> >> its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
> >
> > between
> > someone who sticks to the facts as they know them and someone who makes up
> > slanders and lies against even his former friends, who claims to be He Whom
> > God
> > would Make Manifest, then says it was all a joke after he fails to get a
> > following, then comes back later claiming to the leader of the Azalis.
> >
> > genuinely
> > honest and nice person and a lying jerk. Afterall, what does he know about
> > honesty and fairplay?
>
> I think readers would agree, There is a difference between a (single)
> lying jerk who abuses honesty and fairplay and a lying jerk of a
> religion of (5 million followers) whose administration abuses almighty
> God, honesty and fair play.
>
We all know a lying jerk when we see one, Splasher.
Paul Hammond
> sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 12:05 am:
>
> > On 04 Apr 2004 16:55:44 GMT, sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >
> >> Of course it wouldn't occur to George that there might be a
> distinction
> >> between
> >> someone who sticks to the facts as they know them and someone who
> makes up
> >> slanders and lies against even his former friends, who claims to be
> He Whom
> >> God
> >> would Make Manifest, then says it was all a joke after he fails to
> get a
> >> following, then comes back later claiming to the leader of the
> Azalis.
> >
> > Susan,
> >
> > As the gang of four letter has shown, George is not the only one
> > unable and/or unwilling to make a distinction. That letter should have
> > found the wastebasket and not the post.
>
> First time I ever heard a Baha'i in Good Standing say he wanted to
> throw a truthful letter which contained advice from the infallible
> Universal House in the waste basket?
Upon what criteria have you assessed the "gang of four" letter
from the UHJ as being "a truthful letter"? Or did you mean
to say that it was genuine.
> Had it been a forgery (which I
> admit at first I thought it was) I would have agreed with Chris.
That's the kind of non-question that only a dumb twat like
you could raise. You did it before when Dermod posted
something and you made yourself look silly crying "forgery".
You hadn't done it yet on this recent obsession - but it you
will insist on telling everyone that the thought had crossed
your mind even after you've convinced yourself of what was
never in doubt for anyone else - well, my "dumb twat"
theory gains another data point.
But
> the contents of this letter is 100% true, therefore why would BIGS
> want truthful (documented evidence) (enclosed below) thrown in the
> wastebasket?
>
Because he disagrees with the judgement of the UHJ on Karen?
(I'm still not sure if you mean to use the word "truthful" you
really do mean "genuine" right? Who ever said it wasn't?)
Paul
Paul Hammond
> sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 6:13 am:
>
> > Baldrick,
> >
> > You certainly act the fool and bumble around here, but is it an act,
> > hmmm? So this is how you've felt all along, and you here admit freely
> > in agreement that this letter is truthful with regard to your friends
> > Fred and Nima! I am beginning to think that maybe Dermod was right
> > all along about you in smelling you out as a mole! I remember Dermod
> > saying a mischievous smile was the result of mentioning your name to a
> > Baha'i in NI. Certainly gives pause for reflection!
>
> Ahhhhhhhhhh Chris, that old ball game is long over, trying to mix it
> with Dermod and I has gone long past its sell by date.
Did you ever apologise to him about the nasty things you
said about his daughter? Maybe you even agreed to meet
him in person?
Must have missed that one!
Paul
>
>
> I never snitched in my life until fundamentalists Dr Maneck and Pat
> Kohli
> gave me the special AO snitch treatment here on TRB.
>
<snip>
>
> Now I consider all Baha'is (including yourself and the Fundie quack
> from Hong Kong) all on my snitching list. Like shooting ducks in a
> barrel, everyone of you fundie creeps are fair game. Once I get the
> e/mail address of your LSA's. What is good for the goose is good for
> the Gander. You can thank Dr Maneck and Pat Kohli for that. Revenge is
> sweet, but you Bahai cult sleaseballs dont like getting your own back
> do you?
>
So, you admit to having variable/non-existent moral standards?
Thank you for the (rare) honesty!
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 12:55 pm:
> baldri...@yahoo.co.uk (Baldrick) wrote in message
> news:<9b91a665.0404...@posting.google.com>...
>> in article QNNbc.10268$s34....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns
at
>> randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/4/04 7:19 am:
>>
>>> They understand, quite correctly, that you are far more dangerous
then Nima.
>>
>> Only in different historical concepts of the faith. Both are
dangerous
>> in the eyes of the UHJ and the AO
>>
>> Karen's easy to read fault finding administration essays (since the
>> UHJ was formed) would be read by more non academic western European
&
>> US BIGS from Christian background. Nima is more dangerous to
Iranian
>> BIGS ( who would be well read in the Quran)
>
> Nima is most dangerous to himself, projecting an internet
> persona of a raving lunatic with paranoid delusions
> and delusions of grandeur.
>
>> his knowledge and
>> interest in finding out more about the earlier part of the Faith
in
>> its breach with babism would be of great concern to the UHJ.
>>
>
> It's only a fool like you that he manages to fool, Splasher.
>
>> Interesting how Susan sees both of them differently. On boggles on
the
>> mindset of Dr maneck. All comments welcome. Baldrick
>
> That's "One" boggles, (and "at" the mindset. One cannot boggle
> "on" something) Splasher. I bet you don't welcome
> *this* comment.
Little minor typo freudian slip. Those with intellect and brains
(which dirtygub lacks) wouldn't even bother to pass comment.on TRB.
Baldrick
>
Paul Hammond
> "Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<c4npse$2klut9$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Adelard Rubangura" <Ade_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e1f0b52.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > > Rod, just read again your posting you just posted. You are really
> > > proving Susan's point. Too bad that you don't see it.
> >
> > G'way and ask me arse!
> >
> > This coming from one who thinks that Mugabe is the Mother Theresa of Africa!
>
> So, now you read my mind! I didn't know you have special knowldege
> :-).
> Dermod, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Mugabe is
> Politician
> while Mother Theresa is not.
Adelard, we've read your posts. It is reading nonsense like
what you repost below that allows us to decide that you
have swallowed Mugabe's self-serving propaganda hook, line
and sinker:
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 12:58 pm:
> We all know a lying jerk when we see one, Splasher.
Discribing your imaginary 14 ft willie winkie you *jerk* off every
night dirtygub, or is it somebody else's ding-a-ling you dream about
instead?
Baha'is dont like discussing masturbation. But it seems to be
common.among young men like you.
So fire away Plonker Puller Paul.the bald Parrot..
"Liwat does not encompass fellatio or mutual masturbation. The latter
is common in the middle east but generally considered simply one of
those things young men do that does not need to be acknowledged or
discussed." http://bahai-library.com/?file=armstrong-ingram_provisions_sexuality_aqdas-bsr.html
Baldrick
--
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 1:08 pm:
> Did you ever apologise to him about the nasty things you
> said about his daughter?
Did you ever apoligise to your parents for developing such a dirty
mouth.
Your mum & dad would not be proud of their's son's profanity on TRB
would they?
baldrick
Dermod Ryder
A sensible intelligent person never answers a question by posing an entirely
unrelated one. In so doing, he simply reveals that he cannot answer the
question posed to him because, to do so, would entail divulging a truth that
would not rebound to his credit.
Dermod Ryder
> in article c977f97b.04040...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 12:58 pm:
>
> > We all know a lying jerk when we see one, Splasher.
>
> Discribing your imaginary 14 ft willie winkie you *jerk* off every
> night dirtygub, or is it somebody else's ding-a-ling you dream about
> instead?
> Baha'is dont like discussing masturbation. But it seems to be
> common.among young men like you.
Don't ever crticise anybody else for having a "dirty mouth" until you
cleanse your own and can speak, as it were, from the high moral ground!
Karen Bacquet
>>>
>>>
>>>Have they (National, Regional, 'Cluster' or local) ever contacted you?
>>>Have they ever reached out (online or off) in 'loving Baha'i fellowship'
>>>to hear and consider your concerns/issues?
>>
>>No, and actually I wouldn't really expect them to.
>
>
> Hell I would.....if for reasons of sound buisness management if nothing
> more.
> Clearly you are an individual of capacity and compassion, cabable of
> analysing
> and communicating the pertinant issues.....why ignore such human resources?
> Why let them slip away or be driven out without ever asking or considering
> why?
> In the 'Bommyknocker' threads you will find three letters from the Oz NSA...
> clearly they thought I was an individual of capacity as well (either that or
> someone
> served hash cookies)....yet when it came to the crunch they not only did not
> seek
> information they refused to respond to the concerns expressed.
>
> Could have something to do with a 'culture of denial'? ;-)
Dear Rod,
Oh, yes. The very fact a person has a criticism is taken as a sign that
they have/are a problem -- the focus ends up being on the fact of
criticism, not what sparked it. One of the most remarkable things is
that they don't care that people leave -- they don't care about
capacity; they care about obedience. If you can't give them that, then
they actually *want* you to leave.
>
>
>>Remember, the letter to Steve used just about the exact wording you did
>>-- i.e. "we'd like to discuss your concerns".
>
>
> Yes....and as I understand Steve has agreed to meet with the AO once
> their 'concerns' about his 'concerns' are clearly articulated and form an
> agenda *prior* to the meeting taking place. Not a big or unreasonable
> ask- "You are asking for a meeting....please specify why".
> This elemental of due process seems to have sent them into a tailspin of
> indecisive inactivity.
>
Well, at first they said they wanted to discuss Steve's concerns; it was
only later that they admitted that the purpose of the meeting was that
it was they who had concerns with him.
>
>
>>Now, had Steve met with them, what do you think would have happened?
>
>
> Well....according to NZ custom and tradition Steve would have offered his
> guests lamb....probably Shornbag...then all would remove their shoes in
> favour
> of the ceremonial indoor gumboots...tongs and pokers would be set on the
> coals
> in the Kiwi scull brazier and....oh.......not what you meant huh?.....
>
*chuckle*
>
>
>>Because, Rod, what you say isn't nearly the issue as much as how you say
>>it, and who you say it to.
>
>
> I don't believe either matters Karen....I spent a decade in the community
> and
> half that online being sweet as pie and as polite as a church mouse...the
> evasion,
> misrepresentation and innuendo did not cease or change.
Oh, when it comes to actually getting anything done, most of the time,
it doesn't matter. From what I've seen from the rare person who does
seem to be able to get any response you have to do a delicate balance
between being a squeeky wheel combined with grovelling -- and it has to
be something they haven't already decided they won't do. But most
people don't have the political ability, and quite innocently stumble in
without realizing they need it. Most of the time, people just get told
why nothing is going to be done.
>
>
>>That sort of heartlessness is one of the major things I'm fighting.
>
>
> If you are fighting for 'change'...Good luck....I think the battle is
> lost.....the only reasonable prospect and responsibility is to forewarn
> prospective Baha'is of what they are getting into.
Ever hear the saying "It's not whether you win or lose; it's how you
play the game"? Yeah, I know that change is pretty unlikely in the
short run, but I think it's inevitable in the long term. In the
meantime, my job is to tell the truth and bind up the wounded.
>
>
>>I
>>consider the support that I give to disillusioned Baha'is on UB the most
>>important thing I do --
>
>
> I can not/will not challenge the validity of such a role...as a recipient of
> such counselling and support I still owe a great debt....are you shure
> you will not accept my first born? ;-)
Only if you take mine. :-)
>
>
>>more important than articles, exposes, and
>>sparring with fundies.
>
>
> Here we differ....the 'Independent investigation of truth' entails and
> demands seekers have every opportunity to see exactly what they are
> potentially getting into. Theory/principles are one thing....but here on
> TRB and on Bnut the dynamics and cosmology and culture of the
> Baha'i community are played out in living colour.
> Exposing the prevailing culture within Baha'i is preventative and aught
> lead to fewer people becoming "disillusioned Baha'is".
> I don't mind swearing at fundamentalist fruitloops in performance
> of this community service....I know full well that 99.99% of my
> countrymen would prefer to use, see or be exposed to 'foul language'
> than the obscenity of lie, slander. evasion, platitude and hypocrisy
> that prevails within Baha'i.
Well, what I do find is that my counselling activities are actually
closely connected to my critical ones -- that is, people come talk to me
because they find my criticisms valid; it jives with their experience.
Actually, turning people off the Faith is not really my purpose --
although it does happen. What I do is separate Baha'u'llah from all the
other stuff. The overarching reason that the majority leave the
Faith, except for those who do so for theological reasons, is the
disconnect between the liberal teachings and the authoritarian reality.
>
>
>
>>I'm probably not halfway done with my survey on exit stories yet, but I
>>counted the ones I have so far, and problems/disagreements with the
>>administration or its policies are a much bigger factor than I would
>>have predicted. A surprising number of people leave under fire -- and
>>I'm not talking about the major cases here, but people who show up to
>>tell their stories, then don't do much else. My prediction was that
>>aspects of Baha'i culture (overemphasis on teaching, lack of
>>spirituality etc.) would have been the top category. However, what I've
>>got is very preliminary; we'll see how the numbers hold up.
>
>
> I will be most interested in seeing the end result.
> When I read your survey intent I ran a check over my reasons for
> abandoning the Baha'i community....high(est?) on the list was the
> betrayal of Banjo Clarke and his community and vision.
I've already got you down for that -- "Conflict with administration
decisions and policies".
> But here's another (stranger?) one to add to your survey results....
>
> Remember those kids who cheated at games? The ones who never
> counted properly in hide and seek or the ones who, confronted with
> defeat at Chess/Monopoly would upturn the board in frustration?
> That's what I see the Baha'i apologists doing online on a daily basis.
> Cornered by a question?- Ignore it. Exposed in an argument?- Cut
> it. Unable to muster a defence of stated position or behaviour?- Upturn
> the board and killfile.
>
> I hate cheats.....always have......must have something to do with my due
> process obsession ;-)
>
> To some considerable degree I left the Baha'i community because of the
> demonstrable deficit in intellectual honesty and ethical capacity of
> community
> members.
O.K., thank you -- I suppose that would fit under "Baha'i culture and
practices".
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Paul Hammond
> Furthermore, look how rabid in displeasure he was with a critic of the
> AO on Baha'i Studies. A credible critic at that, Karen. He was
> absolutely livid that she was allowed to post there.
I am so pleased that you are exposing this worm's attempts
to lie about what he said and did there.
Splasher, the trouble with lying about what you said is that
*all* of us here have seen how you change your story and
deny what you said when you are faced with it at a later date.
Paul
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 6:23 pm:
>
> Splasher, the trouble with lying about what you said is that
> *all* of us here have seen how you change your story and
> deny what you said when you are faced with it at a later date.
>
> Paul
Nobody changes his story more than your buddy Dermod one minute, then
tells Nima to shoot you the next. Any comments from you and Chris?
Baldrick
From: Freethought110 <freetho...@yahoo.com>
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: SaturdayMarch 6131020042002 12:14 am
Subject: Dermod Take 3
2 messages in question. The first he "moves to agree with [me] about
Palu" and in the second he says he's leaving.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grim_re...@btinternet.com> | This is Spam |
Add to Address Book
To: "Nima" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: Smaniac on TRB
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:40:07 -0000
Hi Nima,
I finally figured out what you've been up to. Dirty beggar that you
are, you've (and not for the first time) stolen my lines and moved to
force
the Grumpies declare you a CB. Lovely move becoming a Bayani/Azali -
the
lads must be crapping themselves rightly!
A few matters:-
Fleming is a total arsehole and an absolute liability. When I posted
the Gang of Four letter which has sent Maneck and Kohli reeling out of
the
ring, up springs Plonker with his forgery theory. His personal
inadequacy at
not being named shines forth in this and similar inanities. Let's not
forget all the lies about his correspondence with Maneck. This guy
wants to
be the centre and the big cheese but he ain't got what it takes to
even play
the game. I'm going to neutralise him because he is standing in the
way of
me next moves against the BIGS. Last night I went to the InterFaith
Forum
- every minority and majority religion is there, from the only Rabbi
in
the country to one of the 13 Zoroastrians. The 4 BIGS who knew me
were
looking nonplussed and severely worried. I gave the letter to
"Grinner" of the BCNI and asked him why he had come to talk to me -
either he was severely
worried or he was re-arranging his underpants and their contents.
There are
people there who don't like the BIGS who have put a lot of work into
being the
cheeses (their opinion) of the IFF. That letter will go down a bomb
when I introduce it - that may take 3 months or 6 but I don't need
Splasher
there with his forgery theories or any of the other crap he is prone
to. FFS
dump the bastard or send him off to worry the Scientologists. This is
a
real chance to dent the bastards in Norn Iren and I do not want that
wee
fucker messing it up. That was the last place they expected me to
show up and
they saw me having words with the President about him - though they
don't
know that's what it was.
On Palu, I'm moving to agree with you. The Chief Acolyte of the
Karenists has been strangely silent since it became known that she was
a real bad girl - indeed the only reaction was a gibe against Fred - I
expected
much more from him than that .. if indeed he is the great friend. But
I'm
not going to denounce him ... better to use him to advantage ... you
know
my views on dealing with spies ... feed them false information and
feed
them to their masters.
Maneck, BTW, looks to be issuing peace proposals on TRB ... the
Grumpies will talk, if the name-calling stops. Is it a trick or have
they looked over the abyss? Can she or is she speaking for them?
Has the political system changed in Haifa? I ain't holding my breath
but it's the first hopeful sign that I've seen in about 3 years of
combat in the trenches. She is very definitely rattled at the moment
- enough perhaps to flip out or over. I'm working this, hopefully to
best advantage.
I was immensely glad to see the olive branch to Karen. She's still a
Bahai at heart but no BIGS or sell-out to the AO. She was hurt, wears
her
heart on the sleeve, has had major problems at home so don't expect an
early
response. Karen and I have a special empathy because we both have
autistic kids and she has suffered major truma and problems recently
with hers,
almost as much as we have with ours. Paula and I have solved ours
within the last week with homeopathy - Karen's is somewhat more
difficult and
is the reason she ain't been active much recently. She only recently
became aware just how autistic her son is - out at a family gathering
and for
the first time really seeing him interact with his peer group, she was
much
shocked to suddenly see just how little he fitted in - a classic
symptom of autism. I know that feeling - you never get away from it
and you
never get over it for it is continual and continually increasing. As
your kid
grows so s/he fits in less and less. Karen ain't the big tough
bastard that
I am after 20 plus years fighting the fuckers and her son's autism was
late
in life discovery, whereas we knew from the Doodle's birth and had
time to
adjust with no expectations than that she would be disabled to some
extent. I have been slowly encouraging her back to TRB - so leave the
bridge
building with me to work on and just keep shooting the real bastards,
including Palu. I won't be interfering there ... unless you gives me
a
chance at a good ad-lib which I can never resist as in ... let it all
hang out!
As ever,
Dermod.
From: "Dermod Ryder" <grim_re...@btinternet.com> | This is Spam |
Add to Address Book
To: "Nima" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re:Farewell to Arms.
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:11:59 -0000
I've just seen your post on TRB. Frankly I'm spending a lot less time
there at the moment as I have Court action pending over something
that's a
lot more important to me than Bahai Wars, especially given Splasher's
penchant for exceedingly boring inaccurate drivel. The Poison Dwarf
brought the current flames down on him all by himself - I didn't start
it but, I'll
finish it at a time, place and through methods of my choosing.
You laid down an ultimatum for me. That's a fine way of going. There
can only be one response to it and I'm giving it to you now. You
publish
what you want for the simple fact is that for the act of threatening
me with
publication of things expressed through the back channel, I'm out of
Bahai Wars on the Internet full time. That's not a tactic as used in
the
past to buy time to silence Splasher when he has issued threats -
that's the
way it is. I had thought I could trust you - I even played along to
see if
you could persuade Splasher to put up the correspondence with Maneck.
He
didn't and he won't - he's too stupid to realise they are his ticket
to some
form of respect. You take his part - you're stuck with him. I've had
enough of his shit.
Enjoy the fruits of your labour.
Dermod.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random
Signatures" into your Preferences folder.
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/4/04 6:23 pm:
> Seegar <sendither...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<gli270hb137jqmskk...@4ax.com>...
>> Furthermore, look how rabid in displeasure he was with a critic of
the
>> AO on Baha'i Studies. A credible critic at that, Karen. He was
>> absolutely livid that she was allowed to post there.
>
> I am so pleased that you are exposing this worm's attempts
> to lie about what he said and did there.
More stories by two who were never on Baha'i Studies at the time but
believe every lie Dr Maneck says.
Baldrick
--
Randy Burns
>
> Oh, yes. The very fact a person has a criticism is taken as a sign that
> they have/are a problem -- the focus ends up being on the fact of
> criticism, not what sparked it.
Quite correct, Karen. The reason for this is obvious. Baha'is have failed
to differientiate between 'Baha'i Administration' and the current 'Baha'i
Political Process.' The 'Deepened Baha'i -- Loyal in the Covenant' has
really pledged fealty to a certain Baha'i Political Process rather than to
the Administrative Order itself. Criticism of things gone awry in the
reality of the rank and file Baha'i exposes this underlying political
process and the fact that it is NOT in fact a legitimate part of Baha'i
Administration itself. Thus those who would expose this relationship are
marked as 'enemies.'
> One of the most remarkable things is
> that they don't care that people leave -- they don't care about
> capacity; they care about obedience. If you can't give them that, then
> they actually *want* you to leave.
Right again. In this sense the 'purpose' of the Baha'i Faith is NOT to
create a 'Baha'i Administration' based on the principles of Baha'u'llah,
rather it is to bring about what they see as the higher purpose of creating
the 'Deepened Baha'i -- Loyal in the Covenant' i.e. one whose total
existence revolves around obedience to those who are higher in the hierarchy
than they are, not loyalty to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, rather loyalty
to functionaries in the hierarchy. It's sad to discover this, but that is
the obvious conclusion one draws.
> Oh, when it comes to actually getting anything done, most of the time,
> it doesn't matter. From what I've seen from the rare person who does
> seem to be able to get any response you have to do a delicate balance
> between being a squeeky wheel combined with grovelling -- and it has to
> be something they haven't already decided they won't do. But most
> people don't have the political ability, and quite innocently stumble in
> without realizing they need it. Most of the time, people just get told
> why nothing is going to be done.
I think changes are made only when it becomes necessary to hide what must
remain hidden from the majority of rank and file members. The rank and file
are necessary to the process, and without rank and file Baha'is there will
be no one to draw on for future 'Deepened Baha'is -- Loyal in the Covenant',
so the rank and file Baha'is as a group must be retained.
Changes are NOT made to bring administration closer to the teachings of
Baha'u'llah, rather changes are only made to prevent the majority of rank
and file members from discovering what is really happening in the inner
political processes of the Faith.
If you really want to understand the Political nature of Baha'i then you
should read "The Moulding of Communists : The Training of the Communist
Cadre" by Frank S. Meyer, who himself had been an active member of the
Communist Party for 14 years. This book explains in 'delicious' detail the
loving requirements of becoming a 'Deepened Baha'i -- Loyal to the Covevant'
or as communists called them members of the Cadre.
Cheers, Randy
Seegar
wrote:
Baldrick,
Wrong again. I did not have to access the archives. I was there as a
lurker and witnessed your tirade.
Adelard Rubangura
> Ade_...@yahoo.com (Adelard Rubangura) wrote in message news:<3e1f0b52.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<c4npse$2klut9$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Adelard Rubangura" <Ade_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3e1f0b52.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Rod, just read again your posting you just posted. You are really
> > > > proving Susan's point. Too bad that you don't see it.
> > >
> > > G'way and ask me arse!
> > >
> > > This coming from one who thinks that Mugabe is the Mother Theresa of Africa!
> >
> > So, now you read my mind! I didn't know you have special knowldege
> > :-).
> > Dermod, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Mugabe is
> > Politician
> > while Mother Theresa is not.
>
> Adelard, we've read your posts. It is reading nonsense like
> what you repost below that allows us to decide that you
> have swallowed Mugabe's self-serving propaganda hook, line
> and sinker:
The thugs of the MDC did it on on their own and their Masters.
Of course, Mugabe is a Politician, but he is much better than the MDC
backed by the Western Corporate Greed which doesn't care at all for
the average joe.
Please, tell me YES or NO if you support their Economic plan.
Do you understand what privatization of all the school system means?
Do you understand what mean free market and the deadly game of
agricultural subsidies policies from Western Countries and how it has
affected hundreds of millions of Africans living in poverty and in
hunger?
Do you understand what means of not supporting price controls and
the Power of Agricultural subsidies from Western Countries?
Do you understand what means reducing the level of taxation to
please Corporations and not caring for little people? Bush just did it
and we are currently witnessing how it has affected healthcare,
education and so on.
Let's me conclude by saying this Paul, on free market policy. The
third world countries have suffered by this policy, but what I am
witnessing currently is that the free market policy has began
affecting the Western Middle Class families. If you live in the USA
and observe closely what is happening, you may believe strongly that a
new Middle Class revolution is in the making.
And when that segment of population begins to be affected, you may
expect drastic political change in the near future. Just keep my word!
Now, at last, a typical guy like you, living in West will finally
come to understand what other Middle Class families of other nations
have been gone through decades of Corporate greed.
Peace,
Adelard
Baldrick
in article 4dk3705tv88t16ba6...@4ax.com, Seegar at
sendither...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/4/04 7:16 pm:
> Baldrick,
>
> Wrong again. I did not have to access the archives. I was there as a
> lurker and witnessed your tirade.
But you didn't have the guts you cowardly little wimp to speak out
then?
Well then please post documentated evidence to support your claim I
was: "absolutely livid that she was allowed to post there".
Interesting how Karen has put up the rules of her list that its not
the done thing to carry over posts from other groups. But its ok for
BIGS like you Seegar and Dr Maneck to have a go at Baldrick on TRB,
thats if you can find any documentated evidence to support your claim.
bacquet
3/30/04 11:09 PM 1 out of 1
Dear members,
This is just a reminder that Beliefnet's Rules of Conduct #10 states:
"You agree not to copy another member's words from one discussion to
another, or link to them, with unfriendly intent. You agree not to
expand disagreements from one board to another."
Karen Bacquet
Beliefnet Host
Baha'i Debate
Baldrick
Karen Bacquet
>
> But you didn't have the guts you cowardly little wimp to speak out
> then?
> Well then please post documentated evidence to support your claim I
> was: "absolutely livid that she was allowed to post there".
>
> Interesting how Karen has put up the rules of her list that its not
> the done thing to carry over posts from other groups. But its ok for
> BIGS like you Seegar and Dr Maneck to have a go at Baldrick on TRB,
> thats if you can find any documentated evidence to support your claim.
Those aren't the rules of "my list", but Beliefnet's rules, which have
nothing to do with trb, or any other forum, for that matter -- and in
that instance I was specifically directed by Beliefnet staff to
intervene. If Susan or Chris should happen to come to Beliefnet, they
wouldn't be allowed to bring in arguments from other discussions,
either. On trb, people can do practically anything they want.