Discussion:
Blacks in the British Isles and the North
(too old to reply)
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-19 01:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Paul, Pat, Dermod, Errol, and Alma (heaven help me),

Maybe we're all cousins. Read this article by Runoko Rashidi who talks
about the African presence in medieval England, Ireland, and Scotland.
www.cwo.com/~/ucumi/british.html

Paul, you say you don't care about your black one drop of blood. Well,
trot on over to your Mormon genealogists and get them to prove you have
some. Blood, that is, instead of that ice water. --Cal
ALMA ENGELS
2003-12-19 06:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul, Pat, Dermod, Errol, and Alma (heaven help me),
Maybe we're all cousins. Read this article by Runoko Rashidi who talks
about the African presence in medieval England, Ireland, and Scotland.
www.cwo.com/~/ucumi/british.html
Paul, you say you don't care about your black one drop of blood. Well,
trot on over to your Mormon genealogists and get them to prove you have
some. Blood, that is, instead of that ice water. --Cal
Not me, Cal. I am mostly German and Swedish with a bit of French thrown in
for color.
Alma
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-19 22:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Alma,

The point is you don't know what you are until you get it researched by
the Mormon genealogical program or any other good one. I think I told
the story of my archivist and genealogy friend who told the experience
of the little old white lady faithfully coming into his department to
research his background. She came up to his desk naively asking what
"person of color" meant. When he told her, she blanched, looked as
though she was going to faint, grabbed up her papers, and never returned
to the department. --Cal
ALMA ENGELS
2003-12-20 06:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Alma,
The point is you don't know what you are until you get it researched by
the Mormon genealogical program or any other good one. I think I told
the story of my archivist and genealogy friend who told the experience
of the little old white lady faithfully coming into his department to
research his background. She came up to his desk naively asking what
"person of color" meant. When he told her, she blanched, looked as
though she was going to faint, grabbed up her papers, and never returned
to the department. --Cal
Hmmm there is Segal and there are the Mormons-- any Baha'i influences for
you at all?
Alma
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-20 08:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Alma,

Any Baha'i influences for me for what? To find out about blacks in
history or in Baha'i early history? Hardly any. However, we do have
info on the black butler and the posthumous Hand of the Cause and the
African one that I know of. Then there's Elsie Austin. But it seems to
me the Faith is too busy hiding the blacks slaves in our past and
whitewashing them into servants--certainly not to the benefit of the
slaves. Right?

However, there is a ray of hope, since the Research Department has
stated that researchers may be able to get further information if we can
pry it out of the Afnan (which I've heard is not very likely in
anybody's lifetime since even the House of Justice hasn't had much luck
in that regard). But thanks for your queries and enthusiastic support.
--Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-20 19:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Cal,

Though I don't subscribe to your racist paradigm, it seems to me that w/in
that flawed model, Louis Gregory would be an early "Black Baha'i" certainly
earlier than Elsie Austin who was alive rather recently. Ibraheem Kheirella
might also pass for "black" in the USA.

The Baha'is had named that center in South Carolina after Louis Gregory. If
you'd thought we'd named that city in Texas after Elsie, you are mistaken.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-22 21:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Well, I knew Elsie and certainly didn't think the city was named after
her. My daughter went to school there, so I'm pretty up on the place.
If Elsie had founded the town there'd be a Baha'i monument and terraces
around her statue, don't you think?

What racist paradigm are you talking about? Explain, please? --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-23 01:04:24 UTC
Permalink
"Black and White", as used in the USA to describe people, is a racist
paradigm.

Best wishes!
- Pat
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-25 21:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Black and white are racist paradigms? Well I guess the Master, the
Guardian, and the House of Justice use racist paradigms, so they must be
okay. --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-26 00:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Allahu Abha!

Cal,

The Master uses no paradigms any more. The only Baha'i Guardian that I
recognize, uses no paradigms any more. If the UHJ uses these paradigms to
convey a problem in the larger society we live in, so be it. As it happens,
though, I'm confident that the Master had exposed the racist paradigm as a
lie, all your guessing aside.

"How shall we utilize these gifts and expend these bounties? By directing
our efforts toward the unification of the human race. We must use these
powers in establishing the oneness of the world of humanity; appreciate
these virtues by accomplishing the unity of the white and colored races;
devote this divine intelligence to the perfecting of amity and accord among
all branches of the human family, so that under the protection and
providence of God, the East and West may hold each other's hands and become
as lovers. Then will mankind be as one nation, one race and kind; as waves
of one ocean. Although these waves may differ in form and shape, they are
waves of the same sea. Flowers may be variegated in colors but they are all
flowers of one garden. Trees differ though they grow in the same orchard.
All are nourished and quickened into life by the bounty of the same rain;
all grow and develop by the heat and light of the one sun; all are refreshed
and exhilarated by the same breeze; that they may bring forth varied fruits.
This is according to the creative wisdom. If all trees bore the same kind of
fruit it would cease to be delicious. In their never ending variety man
finds enjoyment instead of monotony."
http://bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/fwu/sec-17.html

You're not alone, Cal. Darrick also like to propose that the Master really
agreed with his racism, too.
Paul Hammond
2003-12-26 18:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Kohli
You're not alone, Cal. Darrick also like to propose that the Master really
agreed with his racism, too.
And Cal keeps praising Darrick for his "performance" in keeping
our attention focused on "difficult questions", meanwhile calling
you, me, Alma and Adelard the racists.

To the racist, all things are about race I guess.

Paul
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 19:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

I haven't specified that you were a racist. I said all Americans are
since we can't escape racism. However, now that I think on it, you
British probably are too considering your history of colonialism. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 19:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Well if you believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian are dead and
their writings also, then I guess you could believe we don't have their
paradigms. I don't believe that nor do I think any other Baha'i does.
But, I may be wrong. Since being on Internet I've discovered long ago
that what I once thought of as "Baha'i belief" was definitely not
believed by all Baha'is, even if one could find confirmation in the
writings. And as far as the House of Justice goes, I've seen no
abrogation of the Master's statement from that quarter nor have I seen a
lifting of the onus of racism from off your or my or anybody else's
shoulders. Have you?

And further, the reason Dear Derrick could cause so much alarum and
grousing at him is because we can't come up with anything to counter his
accusations. Right? Where have you seen any cogent official or
unofficial discussion of the Master's remarks or of slavery in the
Faith? I haven't even heard any from Susan and she's generally
well-equipped and -armed. All I've seen is punching poor Derrick in the
face and name-calling him with tired but self-telling epithets. --Cal
Michael McKenny
2003-12-26 21:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Cal and all.
First, aren't they reporting the earthquake in your news media? My
condolences to all those of all religions who have suffered and been
bereaved.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
Well if you believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian are dead
One died in 1921, the other in 1957.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
and
their writings also,
A great deal of written material attributed to each survives.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
then I guess you could believe we don't have their
paradigms.
Out of context, sneaking in at the end of this, I don't know what
you're talking about, unless you mean that Baha'is have been encouraged to
continue peeling away the layers of ingrained prejudices against those who
are of different races, religions, nationalities, classes, etc. Darn good
advice, in my opinion, that ought to be steadily attempted by people of
all faiths, races, nationalities, classes, etc.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I don't believe that nor do I think any other Baha'i does.
But, I may be wrong. Since being on Internet I've discovered long ago
that what I once thought of as "Baha'i belief" was definitely not
believed by all Baha'is,
I always thought Baha'i belief was that there is a vast variety of
divinely created understandings of truth, that such glorious diversity of
human perception was a gift of Deity to humanity (how boring it would be
were the planet an abode of billions of clones) and the great challenge
is for humans to be thankful at the divine creation and not demand
everyone within Baha'i or in the wider outside society subscribe to one
set dogmatic system.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
even if one could find confirmation in the
writings. And as far as the House of Justice goes, I've seen no
abrogation of the Master's statement from that quarter nor have I seen a
lifting of the onus of racism from off your or my or anybody else's
shoulders. Have you?
I feel that it's too early in the game for Baha'is or anyone else to
assume we've attained success, reside in a paradise of global
understanding and may cease striving to peel our onions. Maybe after
humans have actually ceased killing each other, transformed antagonistic
nation states and philosophical systems into something further along the
road to global peace, tolerance and understanding across racial, class,
national, religious, etc. divides, there'll be a better chance of
convincing me there's no need to keep on truckin'.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
And further, the reason Dear Derrick could cause so much alarum and
grousing at him is because we can't come up with anything to counter his
accusations.
Haven't been paying attention here. What's his accusations?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Right? Where have you seen any cogent official or
unofficial discussion of the Master's remarks or of slavery in the
Faith?
I thought Baha'is held slavery was, like, you know, passe, not with
it today, out of synch with the mature way a species behaves. If he said
anything different, in my opinion, slavery remains passe, not with it
today, out of synch with the way mature species behaves.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I haven't even heard any from Susan and she's generally
well-equipped and -armed. All I've seen is punching poor Derrick in the
face and name-calling him with tired but self-telling epithets. --Cal
Ad hominems are as uncool as slavery.
To the rich flourishing of ideas, thoughts, facts, information, real
consultation.
Thrice Three Blessings, Green

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 23:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Michael,

Interesting and pertinent observations but not totally to the point of
what Pat is saying to me and I to him. As a Baha'i I know the years of
the deaths of the Exemplar and the Guardian. In fact the night after the
Guardian's death I was up praying for his recovery as requested by the
Khanum when I should have been studying for my Keats exam. Like most
Baha'is is used to believe, I feel that the Master and Guardian are
physically in another plane of existence and their writings and
instructions, as well as their spirits, are with us as their legacy and
guide. Of course, quite a number of Baha'is I'm finding out through
Internet want to throw their legacies and words out substituting their
own views of things-Baha'i. I'm not one of those, thank Allah. If I had
been I wouldn't have survived as shakily as I have.

If you missed the umpteen posts Darrick supplied us with you're the only
one on the planet. I certainly don't want to stir him up again, unless
you've got a cogent explanation to counter him with. --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-27 01:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
Well if you believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian are dead and
their writings also, then I guess you could believe we don't have their
paradigms.
Just maake up your own beliefs, Cal,and leave me out; the math is much more
straightforward.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I don't believe that nor do I think any other Baha'i does.
But, I may be wrong.
Who knows?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Since being on Internet I've discovered long ago
that what I once thought of as "Baha'i belief" was definitely not
believed by all Baha'is, even if one could find confirmation in the
writings.
That is the sticky part, Cal. One can even show the text in plain English,
and still, on the internet, one may find a Baha'i like you or Darrick,
insisting that 'Abdu'l Baha agrees with you.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
And as far as the House of Justice goes, I've seen no
abrogation of the Master's statement from that quarter nor have I seen a
lifting of the onus of racism from off your or my or anybody else's
shoulders. Have you?
Racism remains a problem, Cal, even among the friends.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
And further, the reason Dear Derrick could cause so much alarum and
grousing at him is because we can't come up with anything to counter his
accusations. Right?
Eh, _wrong_, the truth trumps his parrotings.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Where have you seen any cogent official or
unofficial discussion of the Master's remarks or of slavery in the
Faith?
I was not talking about slavery in the BF. I was writing about racism, that
it is a lie, and that 'Abdu'l Baha wrote about the unity of humanity. No
need to read or consider what you are responding to, though, Cal. You are
on a crusade. What's the point of monomania if you don't stay focus on your
own agenda, right, Cal?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I haven't even heard any from Susan and she's generally
well-equipped and -armed.
I'm sure that if you saw it, you could ignore it, Cal.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
All I've seen is punching poor Derrick in the
face and name-calling him with tired but self-telling epithets. --Cal
Poor Darrick!

- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Adelard
2003-12-27 16:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Since being on Internet I've discovered long ago
that what I once thought of as "Baha'i belief" was definitely not
believed by all Baha'is, even if one could find confirmation in the
writings.
That is the sticky part, Cal. One can even show the text in plain English,
and still, on the internet, one may find a Baha'i like you or Darrick,
insisting that 'Abdu'l Baha agrees with you.
I think this could be a reflection of their behavior. It's like when
you see yourself in the mirrow, you see a reflection of yourself. That
kind of tells me whom Cal maybe.
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
And as far as the House of Justice goes, I've seen no
abrogation of the Master's statement from that quarter nor have I seen a
lifting of the onus of racism from off your or my or anybody else's
shoulders. Have you?
Racism remains a problem, Cal, even among the friends.
Maybe he came to the faith with the nonsense teachings of "born again
beliefs" from his former religion. When some becomes a Baha'i, it
means he agrees to start a life long spiritual journey of becoming a
Baha'i.
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
And further, the reason Dear Derrick could cause so much alarum and
grousing at him is because we can't come up with anything to counter his
accusations. Right?
Eh, _wrong_, the truth trumps his parrotings.
Paul, Pat, Susan and I and so on, refuted his nonsense postings. Use
goggle to see our responses. You just came to this newsgroup litle
bit late, and you don't know much how we have been dealing with him.

Recently, I asked you to provide any quote where the Master uses
racism, you didn't provide any.
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Where have you seen any cogent official or
unofficial discussion of the Master's remarks or of slavery in the
Faith?
I was not talking about slavery in the BF. I was writing about racism, that
it is a lie,
It's all a big lie, let him continue to stick to the Old
Order,unfortunately. Cal always believes the propaganda of the Media.
Didn't we see him his reactions here about Irak and WMD? Pat, what we
really expect from him?
Post by Pat Kohli
and that 'Abdu'l Baha wrote about the unity of humanity. No
need to read or consider what you are responding to, though, Cal. You are
on a crusade. What's the point of monomania if you don't stay focus on your
own agenda, right, Cal?
Peace,
Adelard
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 16:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Adelard,

True, all I know of Iraq or the WMD is what I've seen in the media.
I've never been there to see for myself since nobody invited me to be on
the inspection team or work with Dr. David Kelly.
I'm sure you and your lackeys you so love to invoke got your information
on such from hands-on experience.

That also applies to your knowledge of those savory comments allegedly
made by the Master regarding blacks and Indians. I've certainly not
seen where you've cogently explained them away, by the way, except with
the platitudes I heard way back in the middle of the last century. Even
the old Indian Service Committee back then would have laughed in your
faces. I'm more polite these days. I don't have to be a psychologist
to know that the reason you no-brainers are so mad at Darrick is you
believe he's right. Sad. Has it occurred to your eminences to come up
with some explanation that intelligent people will buy instead of your
mushmouth crap? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 17:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Have you considered explaining why 'Abdu'l-Baha made those comments
instead of bashing Darrick for posting them and drawing his conclusions?
I've not drawn his conclusions, but one can assume by your inability to
explain them that you secretly share Darrick's pronouncements. But, of
course, it's easier to try and escape your inner unrest by name-calling
me. It may work with some folk, but it doesn't with intelligent ones.
--Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-31 02:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Allahu Abha!

'Abdu'l Baha's comments have been explained repeatedly to Darrick, possibly
for years before your arrival. In a nutshell, his quoations are out of
context.

Adelard and Dave Fiorito put some time in this:
http://groups.google.com./groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=acj8ra%24puu6c%241%40ID-75457.news.dfncis.de

I'd even mentioned this and provided the link this summer:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3F19D22B.53858607%40ameritel.net&rnum=14

Drawing from those links
xxxxxx Adelard, March 2000 xxxxxxxxxxxx

My purpose ,in this thread is to show you that Abdu'l-baha used the word
"Savage" and "Barbarian",not only to Africans but to Europeans too.

This will help you to understand the Agenda of Derrick, he want to show to
African-Americans that Abdu'l-bha
had some "racist views" to Africans, but instead this was the kind of
language in time of Abdu'l-baha , and he
used it to all races ,in the purpose of showing the importance of EDUCATION.



Today throughout the five continents of the globe it is Europe and most
sections of America that are renowned for law and order, government and
commerce, art and industry, science, philosophy and education. Yet in
ancient times these were the MOST SAVAGE of the world's peoples, the most
ignorant and brutish.
They were even stigmatized as BARBARIANS --that is, utterly RUDE and
UNCIVILIZED . Further, from the fifth century after Christ until the
fifteenth, that period defined as the Middle Ages, such terrible struggles
and fierce upheavals, such ruthless encounters and horrifying acts, were the

rule among the peoples
of Europe, that the Europeans rightly describe those ten centuries as the
Dark Ages. The basis
of Europe's progress and civilization was actually laid in the fifteenth
century of the Christian era, and from that time on, all her present evident

culture has been, under the stimulus of great minds and as a result of the
expansion of the frontiers of knowledge and the exertion of energetic and
ambitious efforts, in the process ofdevelopment. Today by the grace of God
and the spiritual influence of His universal Manifestation, the fair-minded
ruler of Írán has gathered his people into the shelter of justice, and the
sincerity of the imperial purpose has shown itself in kingly acts. "

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Adelard was quoting from page 10 of the "Secret of Divine Civilization".
'Abdu'l Baha is showing that the notion of a race being genetically
inferior, is rubbish, since the most advanced of the day had been the most
savage in previous centuries.

XXX Adelard in March 2000, again XXXXXXX

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and
barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa
and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The
savages of America do not bury their children alive as
these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being
an honorable thing to do.+F1 Thus many of the men would
threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to
you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time
the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was
permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands
had more than ten wives in their household. When these
tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take
the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive
and treat them as slaves. When a man who had ten wives
died, the sons of these "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Again, 'Abdu'l Baha points out savagery where it occurs, regardless of the
race.

Here is a link to "Some Answered Questions":
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/saq/
I don't believe that 'Abdu'l Baha authenticated the original, but it seems
to reflect the general gist of His thoughts.

Here is a link to "Secret of Divine Civilization":
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/sdc/
Though He wrote it under a pseudonym, I believe it is an authenticated text.

I would encourage you to read the teachings of 'Abdu'l Baha for yourself,
rather than relying on the sentences that Darrick has pulled from context.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-31 23:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Adelard's and Dave's explanations are two of the lamest I've heard so
far. I suspect Susan would agree. --Cal
Adelard
2004-01-01 16:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
Adelard's and Dave's explanations are two of the lamest I've heard so
far. I suspect Susan would agree. --Cal
Cal, I think you exemplify what you said on your posting below. Maybe
you have to overcome your suspicious natures. I worked on mine, as you
can tell.


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bahai+cal+suspicious+natures&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=17999-3F896DBF-82%40storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net&rnum=1


Peace,
Adelard
Brid
2003-12-19 09:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul, Pat, Dermod, Errol, and Alma (heaven help me),
Maybe we're all cousins. Read this article by Runoko Rashidi who talks
about the African presence in medieval England, Ireland, and Scotland.
www.cwo.com/~/ucumi/british.html
Paul, you say you don't care about your black one drop of blood. Well,
trot on over to your Mormon genealogists and get them to prove you have
some. Blood, that is, instead of that ice water. --Cal
Cal,

Knowing your interest in the British Royal Family, had you heard about
the black antecedents of George III's Queen, Charlotte? She was
supposed to be descended from a black branch of the Portugese Royal
Family.

http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/pages/citizens/queen.htm
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-19 22:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Brid,

Thanks about Queen Charlotte. I wondered why she was pictured on this
subject site but hadn't had time to look her up. Now I know why Paul is
so resigned to being black.

I hope I'm still alive when the Afnan release their papers under Momen
in the Afnan Library in London. I just fear the scholars won't get to
them before they're relegated to bowels of the International Archives
never to be seen again. The recent Strom Thurmond and his black
daughter affair has left me anticipating the genealogical impact the
slaves of the Bab and Baha'u'llah may have had on the Holy Familites.
Anything that can be conceived is possible. Right? --Cal
Paul Hammond
2003-12-22 11:42:35 UTC
Permalink
You don't know anything, Cal - least of all anything about me!
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-22 21:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

True, I know little about you except what you say. However, what you
say sort of shows you don't know that much about yourself and are
certainly confused on your religious identity. If you're not confused
on it, you're certainly confusing about it. --Cal
Paul Hammond
2003-12-23 15:55:49 UTC
Permalink
You don't know shit, Cal - least of all about me.

I don't forget, or forgive, that you were the originator of the
"Baha'i Spy" theory that others less cute than you have since
run wild with.

Paul
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-25 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

The Baha'i Spy I thought was attributed to Mai. You were thought to be
a mole for the AO which is not the same thing. Somebody told me you
were really a Baha'i which was the deepest cut of all. However, you
pulled too many booboos to be a real Baha'i so I had to conclude my
source was mistaken. No Baha'i could be that bad. Right? But you must
have had some good tutors at your university Baha'i club for which you
ought to be grateful. Lots of Baha'is don't know half as much as you
boast you know about the Faith. Once you're a Baha'i and go
full-throttle, you ought to be a knockout. You could be appointed a BM
or even a Counsellor. But you'd have to get married, though, to make
that kind of move ahead. --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-26 01:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul,
The Baha'i Spy I thought was attributed to Mai. You were thought to be
a mole for the AO which is not the same thing.
Well, no, it is the same thing. A mole is called a mole because the mole
operates undercover. The mole can sabotage while under cover, and the mole
can, and does spy, while operating covertly. Normally, simple spying is
distinct from sabotage, but to accuse one of moling certainly leaves room
for that, and, to now pretend it does not, would seem facetious.

"Are you, indeed, a double agent, then, as Star suspects? Great show if
you are! The English were always good at that. Who was that famous spy
guy who came in from the cold years ago in England? --Cal"
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl248664303d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=10186-3EC17AC0-47%40storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Somebody told me you
were really a Baha'i which was the deepest cut of all.
Somebody, anybody, nobody, or the thought simply crossed your mind? Do you
believe anything that somebody tells you?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
However, you
pulled too many booboos to be a real Baha'i so I had to conclude my
One could be mistaken.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
source was mistaken. No Baha'i could be that bad. Right? But you must
One never knows, does one?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
have had some good tutors at your university Baha'i club for which you
Why would he care to be grateful for that? Shouldn't he also be grateful he
has somebody to tell him what to be grateful for? Too bad he does not
believe everything that somebody says, eh?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
ought to be grateful. Lots of Baha'is don't know half as much as you
Cal, I don't recall reading Paul boasting of how much he knows about the
faith, though 'flailing one's drum' does appear to be a regular feature from
some contributors in this forum. Rather than claiming some enhanced
knowledge, Paul has demonstrated a knowledge of the history, principles,
practices, etc. far beyond that of some of the Baha'is and even resignees
who've adorned this place with their presence.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
boast you know about the Faith. Once you're a Baha'i and go
full-throttle, you ought to be a knockout. You could be appointed a BM.
Surely, you will be appointed a BM before Paul. Hmmm, are BMs really
appointed - don't they simply come forth naturally?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
or even a Counsellor. But you'd have to get married, though, to make
that kind of move ahead. --Cal
With you to mentor the fellow, how could he need a spouse?

Best wishes!
- Pat
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 19:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

I never thought Paul was a mole or a double agent either until the
questions were raised about his strange interfacings and unique, oblique
relationship to the Faith straight out of E.S. Stevens' _The Mountain of
God_, maybe the first and only novel on lust, love, religion, and
intrigue circling around 'Abdu'l-Baha in the early 1900s. (See my
article in Journal of Baha'i Studies, vol. 1, no. 4, 1989. I think it's
on Jonah Winter's website).

Of course, the Evil Whisperer really got my chest going when Paul asked
me all those dumb questions on Zuhur if you'll recall. --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-26 20:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
I never thought Paul was a mole or a double agent either until the
questions were raised about his strange interfacings and unique, oblique
relationship to the Faith straight out of E.S. Stevens' _The Mountain of
God_, maybe the first and only novel on lust, love, religion, and
intrigue circling around 'Abdu'l-Baha in the early 1900s. (See my
article in Journal of Baha'i Studies, vol. 1, no. 4, 1989. I think it's
on Jonah Winter's website).
I doubt you would just wake up one day, and decide that somewhere in the
non-Baha'i world is a man named Paul Hammond, and, he is, in fact, a Baha'i
mole. More likely, due to some of your own character attributes, and a deep
attraction to slander and libel, you drew these sorts of impressions:

"Go back and look at some of your comments and pick out the
clues for the opinion that you're not who you claim to be. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to see who you are. You're the Zorro of the
Baha'i West and the Scarlet Pimpernel of Baha'i England and
of her colonies--Ireland and Australia! --Cal"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl543528027d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=10184-3EBFF456-392%40storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net

"Paul,
Add to who you are: the Baha'i Stakeknife of England and Ireland. --Cal"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl543528027d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=10184-3EBFF4BA-393%40storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net

You are happy with your excuse, and that is the important thing, right?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Of course, the Evil Whisperer really got my chest going when Paul asked
me all those dumb questions on Zuhur if you'll recall. --Cal
Nah, Cal, I won't recall those dumb questions that Paul asked you on
Zuhur19. Could you explain why asking really dumb questions might be a sign
of a mole? I'd always _supposed_ that you asked so many really dumb
questions _intentionally_ rather than accidently, since I doubt you are
nearly as dumb as your questions suggest.

Best wishes!
- Pat
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 23:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Pull up some of Paul's comments on Zuhur to see if my characterization
of him as the Scarlet Pimpernil may not be accurate. I even see him as
Leslie Howard, my favorite actor portraying him. Non-Baha'i world? I
first remember Paul from Zuhur which I don't consider a non-Baha'i
world, although there were lots of unconventional ones on it as there
are on TRB. Frankly, I thought he was a Baha'i until his revelations on
this list, and I was finally convinced that my source was entirely
wrong. I would think that if he were a Baha'i and said he wasn't he'd
be afraid of getting struck by lightening or, at minimum, by one of
those red double-decker buses. I remember how Firuz said Persians would
rather die than dissimulate their faith or be one of those that have
have gone insane or thereabouts. Paul, from what he says, is not
Persian, and I give him the benefit of the doubt about the thereabouts.
--Cal
Paul Hammond
2003-12-30 18:20:04 UTC
Permalink
I'm not a Baha'i, Cal.

You finally got that, right?

Paul
Pat Kohli
2003-12-31 02:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
Pull up some of Paul's comments on Zuhur to see if my characterization
of him as the Scarlet Pimpernil may not be accurate.
Show me these comments if you want me to see them. I had tried to point out
that I won't look through Zuhur19 for this stuff; I doubt I could get in if
I wanted to, and I suspect that the search potential is limited.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I even see him as
Leslie Howard, my favorite actor portraying him. Non-Baha'i world? I
first remember Paul from Zuhur which I don't consider a non-Baha'i
world, although there were lots of unconventional ones on it as there
are on TRB.
Whatever!
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Frankly,
Yes?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I thought he was a Baha'i
Understandable, but he has said on numerous times that he is not. I don't
think that people should argue with him about it.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
until his revelations on
this list, and I was finally convinced that my source was entirely
wrong. I would think that if he were a Baha'i and said he wasn't he'd
be afraid of getting struck by lightening or, at minimum, by one of
those red double-decker buses.
I'm sure that is not a factor. You have no fear of being struck by one of
those San Francisco trolley cars, do you?

(snip)
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-31 20:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

Fear of being struck by a San Francisco trolley? You bet I do. It
happens here all the time with little old ethnic men and women who think
they can stop one by standing in front of them instead of running along
side of them. Paul impresses me as the sort of personality that would
stand in front of a double decker red bus demanding they halt for him or
who would stand in the moors in a lightening storm defying his
Non-Existent Allah. Some Baha'is do that with the House of Justice,
too.

And certainly I'm not arguing with Paul about his being a Baha'i,
although he seems confused enough to qualify him for the position.
Right?

I did try to trick you into saying how you got your information from
Zuhur. --Cal
Pat Kohli
2004-01-01 00:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Cal,

You wouldn't need any trick to find out where I get my information on Zuhur
from. I really don't ahve any information on it. I may see something that
you, or someone else has posted in the course of the spillover molephobia.

Plonk!
Paul Hammond
2004-01-02 17:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
Pull up some of Paul's comments on Zuhur to see if my characterization
of him as the Scarlet Pimpernil may not be accurate.
Show me these comments if you want me to see them. I had tried to point out
that I won't look through Zuhur19 for this stuff; I doubt I could get in if
I wanted to, and I suspect that the search potential is limited.
He's not going to be able to show you these comments for
two very good reasons:

1) Nima pulled the plug on Zuhur in a fit of pique after
Steve Marshall and myself stood up to the chief bully's
ad-hominem tactics something over a year ago now.

2) I never made any such comments about Cal, it's all in
his head.

Paul
Post by Pat Kohli
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I even see him as
Leslie Howard, my favorite actor portraying him. Non-Baha'i world? I
first remember Paul from Zuhur which I don't consider a non-Baha'i
world, although there were lots of unconventional ones on it as there
are on TRB.
Whatever!
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Frankly,
Yes?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I thought he was a Baha'i
Understandable, but he has said on numerous times that he is not. I don't
think that people should argue with him about it.
Cal thinks that Nima and Error are more reliable witnesses
of my own religious beliefs than I am.

Or, at least, his stupid persona purports to believe that
this is a reasonable way to proceed.

Paul
Pat Kohli
2004-01-02 22:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Kohli
(snip)
Cal thinks that Nima and Error are more reliable witnesses
of my own religious beliefs than I am.
Or, at least, his stupid persona purports to believe that
this is a reasonable way to proceed.
I feel I can only take so much at a time before my allergies kick in.

Happy New Year!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-03 21:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

You've got allergies, too? Have you thought of coming in out of the
rain? It might help. It's been raining here in San Francisco up a real
storm and I'm sneezing something awful when I walk around in it. Take a
pill, drink a hot toddy, curl up in front of the fire, and watch the
tellie instead of your monitor. Great help for your allergies. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-03 21:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

You must forgive me if you make me confused? Tell that to Hayakawa in
his chapter on Unsanity

i clearly recall your question of me on Zuhur when you sounded
incredulous and even mocking that I believed in Baha'u'llah. At the
time I thought you were one of those intellectual types or a disaffected
believer. One person told me you asked me that because I seemed too
weird to be a Baha'i or too truthful.

Later, when you said you were not a Baha'i but an atheist, it confirmed
for me that you were a disaffected Baha'i. Then when I read somewhere
in the free-flowing dialogue on TRB that you said you got your
information on the Faith from being the head of a university Baha'i Club
I was totally impressed but skeptical. The American university Baha'i
club's I've known over the years didn't have that quality of Baha'i
knowledge from either non-Baha'is or Baha'is.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that your comments over the years
about your Baha'i identity make me wander in the paths of delusion
unable to see truth with mine own eyes, hear it with mine own ears.

But now that you seem to have hopped into the pen of the Pig People, it
makes me wonder if your suckling originated there and you were, indeed,
sent out from the Slough into the Nest of Vipers as some have
speculated.

Well, you can tell Mama Pig (aka the Queen) she's done a wonderful job
in getting you weaned. Too bad the doctor has taken me off ham hocks,
although I just got a site from my kids that it's not pigs I have to
worry about but carbohydrates for high cholesterol and diabetes. I guess
all that reading they did at Baha'i Sunday School about the Vegetable
and Animal Kingdoms interracting in us to develop who we are as
spiritual beings may have had some validity.

However, remember what the Poet said about lying down with pigs....
Vipers, too, I guess, now that I recall some more of Shakespeare or was
that Shaw? --Cal
Paul Hammond
2004-01-04 16:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul,
You must forgive me if you make me confused? Tell that to Hayakawa in
his chapter on Unsanity
I don't forgive you for anything, Cal.

That was where I came in, wasn't it?

You were the originator of the suggestion that I might be
a Baha'i spy - a suggestion that has caused me much trouble.

I have remembered that, always will remember that, and
will not forgive you for that.

Paul
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-04 21:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

Well, hang me for a wolf instead of a lamb (or however the English say
it). Just kidding about your not being a Baha'i spy and trying to be
nice. Remember how 'Abdu'l-Baha said it was okey for us to lie in some
situations like with a doctor and a terminally ill patient? Okay, I
lied. I do believe you are a Baha'i and a plant--but more like an
egg-plant than a spy per se. I must say, however, that you're better
than most of the Baha'i spies around. Does babykins feel better now
that mommykins has kissed his little hurtie? --Cal
Paul Hammond
2003-12-26 18:23:26 UTC
Permalink
I'm talking about years ago back on Zuhur19 where you first gave
Nima the idea, in those days, Dr Kelly was alive and well and
no-one had heard of Mai Pederson, and Nima had just thrown
someone off his list accusing them of passing on secrets to
fundies.

Nima has been banging on about that for more than a year and
a half now with NO EVIDENCE.

I haven't forgotten how you first suggested this to him about
me somewhere around two years ago, even if you have. As I
say, I haven't forgiven you for it either.

Paul
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 19:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

That's okay. To forgive is divine. I couldn't imagine you sharing in
that attribute of the Godhead. I do remember that you, Steve, and a
couple of you other liberals suggested to Nima that I was the mole on
Zuhur when you well knew who the real mole was. So it's tit for tat. I
got even, but I forgave you which proves my godliness. Right? --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-26 19:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul,
That's okay. To forgive is divine. I couldn't imagine you sharing in
that attribute of the Godhead. I do remember that you, Steve, and a
couple of you other liberals suggested to Nima that I was the mole on
Zuhur when you well knew who the real mole was. So it's tit for tat. I
got even, but I forgave you which proves my godliness. Right? --Cal
It seems you've kept up that line, accusing Paul of being a Baha'i mole.
So, if you've forgiven him, was this done yesterday, after he reminded you
of your role in the charges of moling? If so, where is the forgiveness in
blaming him now, and saying it is tit for tat? If you'd forgiven him
before, where is the forgiveness of making up some accusation of him moling?




Toodles!
- Pat
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-26 23:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

No. I've forgiven Paul for joining in on the gaggle of geese who tried
to convince Nima on Zuhur that I was the mole. Happily Nima, as he
pointed out to me, wasn't duped by duplicitous Baha'is (nor was Star,
bless her heart) and set a trap for the real mole as you well know.
Naivete abounds among the ranks of the wannabes. Just another list with
the Folks.... --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-27 01:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
No. I've forgiven Paul for joining in on the gaggle of geese who tried
to convince Nima on Zuhur that I was the mole.
I'm not seeing forgiveness in your accusations against him. So, I was
curious, when did you forgive him? Given your accusations against him over
the year, it couldn't have been in previous months, and given your recent
statements suggesting he got what he deserved, it doesn't seem to be
something you've forgiven him for this week.

I see I've already asked about this alleged forgiveness, and it sure doesn't
look like you want to answer the question. A straightforward, "none of your
dedgum bizness" is okay, Cal, if you want to make claims that you hope
everyone will read as purely tongue in cheek, you know, for a 'rhetorical'
effect?
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Happily Nima, as he
pointed out to me, wasn't duped by duplicitous Baha'is (nor was Star,
bless her heart) and set a trap for the real mole as you well know.
I did not see Nima's witch hunt on Zuhur, so I don't know how happily Nima
was not duped by you, or those like you.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Naivete abounds among the ranks of the wannabes. Just another list with
the Folks.... --Cal
Ultimately, this group is not about moling and countermoling.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 17:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

I seem to recall a while back that there was considerable and consuming
discussion of moles on this list. When you say that it's ultimately not
about such, when did its goal change? What is this list about? --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-31 02:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Cal,

A straightforward "none of your consarned bizness" would be a straight
answer.

BTW, this is not a list at all. It is a newsgroup (aka usenet) - anyone can
read it - the messages are not mailed to a set list of recipients. The
group has a charter which has been posted from time to time, and had been
voted on when the newsgroup was formed.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7inkuo%24jgf%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

xxxxxx TRB Charter xxxxxxxxx


TRB Charter
The charter, culled from the vote result announcement:

All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion.

Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally
accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take any
point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows
criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their
own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking questions
and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question.

Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this
newsgroup.

Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to
start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.

The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is prohibited.
Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any
postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are prohibited. To
facilitate viewing in news readers that are not HTML-capable,
HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged.

Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are
encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive cross-posting.
Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from
soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Welcome to usenet, Cal!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-31 23:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Pat,

I could care less with the object of the list is, but you brought up the
issue. Right? --Cal
Pat Kohli
2004-01-01 02:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Cal,
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I could care less with the object of the list is, but you brought up the
issue. Right? --Cal
"What is this list about?"
- Cal Rollins, previous message on this thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2934270485d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=11526-3FF1B2A7-111%40storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net

Can you tell me what your name is?

No need to bother, though. I'm sure it is none of my business. Hopefully I
won't see your follow-up question.

- Je souvien en MD
Steve Marshall
2003-12-27 07:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Happily Nima, as he
pointed out to me, wasn't duped by duplicitous Baha'is ...
and set a trap for the real mole as you well know.
No, Cal. All Nima did was kick off folks like Bill Duquet without any
evidence. The person who managed the list after Nima handed it over
dumped D**** B*****, who was hiding on the list under a pseudonym, and
who was was most likely a real mole.

cheers
Steve
Sufi Babi
2003-12-29 00:23:42 UTC
Permalink
You losers still on this?
Post by Steve Marshall
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Happily Nima, as he
pointed out to me, wasn't duped by duplicitous Baha'is ...
and set a trap for the real mole as you well know.
No, Cal. All Nima did was kick off folks like Bill Duquet without any
evidence.
Go ask your so called wife what the evidence was the she gave me then
to kick off Bill Duquet. Was she lying to me? It was her axe which I
was used by to dump BD. Amazing how gullible I was back then to take
the fall for Alison something like that. Word of wisdom to the wise:
never ever befriend or believe a thing said by Kiwis, especially
baha'i ones.
Post by Steve Marshall
The person who managed the list after Nima handed it over
dumped D**** B*****, who was hiding on the list under a pseudonym, and
who was was most likely a real mole.
Actually, sans Juan, the real moles turned out to be people like you,
Karen Bacquet, Paul Hammond, Dermod Ryder, et al., and now that you
are all kissing Susan Maneck's ass in full public view there is little
doubt in any sane, objective person's mind.

And, Cal, Steve Marshall was the most insistent on having you thrown
off Zuhur19 by calling you the mole. I apologize to you for having
been deceived by Steve Marshall and falling for it. If I had truly
appreciated at the time the kind of dishonest lowlive sleaze-balls
that Steve and Alison Marshall really are (and it is at such times
like this that one begins to give the uhj some credit for dumping her
from their organization -- if it is a real dumping, that is), Steve
and his wife would've probably been the ones dumped and not you.

Anyway, seems like TRB largely consists of the same sorry cast of
real-life middle-aged losers ("L") going around the same stupid
discussions about the same irrelevent drivel regarding the same
insignificant Amway cult with prayer.
I'm outta here and won't be back for awhile! To friends, farewell and
may the Shwartz be with you. To enemies, as always, fuck you!
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 16:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Sufi,

Well I'd long before sniffed out Steve but was rather stunned by his
obvious slip during the Duquet Phenomenon. (Is it really Duckit like
the Bouquet --Buckit--in BBCs "Keeping Up Appearances?" She's so phoney
she'd make a perfect Baha'i these days.

I sort of agree with you, Sufi. But I would say "Phouquet them all,
including the ones without marshall arts." --Cal
Dermod Ryder
2004-01-01 23:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sufi Babi
Actually, sans Juan, the real moles turned out to be people like you,
Karen Bacquet, Paul Hammond, Dermod Ryder, et al., and now that you
are all kissing Susan Maneck's ass in full public view there is little
doubt in any sane, objective person's mind.
Ass kissing has never been my style!
Post by Sufi Babi
And, Cal, Steve Marshall was the most insistent on having you thrown
off Zuhur19 by calling you the mole. I apologize to you for having
been deceived by Steve Marshall and falling for it. If I had truly
appreciated at the time the kind of dishonest lowlive sleaze-balls
that Steve and Alison Marshall really are (and it is at such times
like this that one begins to give the uhj some credit for dumping her
from their organization -- if it is a real dumping, that is), Steve
and his wife would've probably been the ones dumped and not you.
Of course, as I told you at the time, Cal wasn't the mole on Zuhur. That he
was set up as one was proof positive that he wasn't one - one never ever
sacrifices the source of one's information. events have proven how much the
Grumpies and their lackeys feared Zuhur and the machinations that were
ongoing. Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism. Even though it was explained to them, they still think
that's what was going on there.

Of course without a Guardian to guide them how can you expect accurate
interpretation from the Grumpies or their lackeys.
Post by Sufi Babi
Anyway, seems like TRB largely consists of the same sorry cast of
real-life middle-aged losers ("L") going around the same stupid
discussions about the same irrelevent drivel regarding the same
insignificant Amway cult with prayer.
Are you including Splasher in this club? Just asking, as much of the real
drivel around here originates with him.
Post by Sufi Babi
I'm outta here and won't be back for awhile! To friends, farewell and
may the Shwartz be with you. To enemies, as always, fuck you!
In what sense of the real "eff" word are we to interpret that final
salutation - as an invitation to reproductive activity or something
infinitely more interesting?
Susan Maneck
2004-01-02 08:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of course, as I told you at the time, Cal wasn't the mole on Zuhur. That he
was set up as one was proof positive that he wasn't one - one never ever
sacrifices the source of one's information. events have proven how much the
Grumpies and their lackeys feared Zuhur and the machinations that were
ongoing.
Dear Dermod,

If you'd been paying close enough attention you would have known by now that
the AO had never placed 'moles' on Zuhur. Those people who were 'spilling the
beans' there were folks Nima had himself subscribed without so much as asking
their permission. They therefore felt no obligation to follow the list rules.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret.
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism.
What did the 'Grumpies" have to do with any of this? It was I who suggested
that you both were egging Martin on, and it was on the basis of an oral report
I'd received, rather than one of the forwarded messages I usually got from
Nima's own 'mole'. However, I got a bit confused as to what information I got
from whom and in what form.

Susan



http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Sufi Babi
2004-01-02 23:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of course, as I told you at the time, Cal wasn't the mole on Zuhur. That he
was set up as one was proof positive that he wasn't one - one never ever
sacrifices the source of one's information. events have proven how much the
Grumpies and their lackeys feared Zuhur and the machinations that were
ongoing.
Dear Dermod,
If you'd been paying close enough attention you would have known by now that
the AO had never placed 'moles' on Zuhur.
Bullshit! The fact that a post from Zuhur19 ended in yours and Mark
Fosters possession proves you are lying here.
Post by Susan Maneck
Those people who were 'spilling the
beans' there were folks Nima had himself subscribed without so much as asking
their permission.
More bullshit. Everyone who was subscribed to Zuhur19 had to go
through rigorous process of identifying who they were before being
subscribed to the list. That was the policy Alison and I pursued to
the end until Randy Burns (most definitely a man who is not what he
said he was) changed it.

<They therefore felt no obligation to follow the list rules.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret.
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism.
What did the 'Grumpies" have to do with any of this? It was I who suggested
that you both were egging Martin on, and it was on the basis of an oral report
I'd received, rather than one of the forwarded messages I usually got from
Nima's own 'mole'.
Now a confession that there was a mole on Zuhur19.
Post by Susan Maneck
However, I got a bit confused as to what information I got
from whom and in what form.
That is because you are confused. Anyway who trades in their freedom
and integrity to put themselves under Abdul-Missagh Ghadirian and the
9 representatives of the manifestation of satan and the golden calf in
Haifa, has no brain.
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-03 21:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Sufi,

Well I'm just glad that the rumor that Susan, Pat, and Mark on SRB were
discussing what I was saying on Zuhur wasn't true. I just assumed that
it was Pat incognito on the list, but apparently I was wrong. Never
heard of this Dave Birkman. What ever happened to him? --Cal
Rod
2004-01-03 14:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of course, as I told you at the time, Cal wasn't the mole on Zuhur. That he
was set up as one was proof positive that he wasn't one - one never ever
sacrifices the source of one's information. events have proven how much the
Grumpies and their lackeys feared Zuhur and the machinations that were
ongoing.
Dear Dermod,
If you'd been paying close enough attention you would have known by now that
the AO had never placed 'moles' on Zuhur. Those people who were 'spilling the
beans' there were folks Nima had himself subscribed without so much as asking
their permission. They therefore felt no obligation to follow the list rules.
What a simply stunning display of ethical understanding!

'They' had been subscribed without their "permission"...so...rather than
unsubscribe
and leave the List participants to engage in what they understood to be a
private
conversation governed by List rules of privacy...they stuck around to
'unofficially
monitor what was said and subsequently-"spill the beans"?

And this just slides off your pen without pause or hesitation doesn't it
Susan?
These are Baha'is you are talking about aren't they Susan?
Individuals governed in conduct by values, principles, morals and ethics
'Divine'
in origin?
It was quite ok for them to lurk and spy and listen in and "spill the beans"
because-
well...hell...they had been wrongly subscribed- and there was nothing
AO/official
about it- and whatever they spied on and reported back was motivated by the
highest motive/s of protecting the Faith and its image/interests....so there
was
nothing unprincipled, unethical or slimy about it was there?

No need for any concern or consideration of the rights of others...what
rights to
privacy should liberal/lapsed/unenrolled or ex Baha'is have?
Why should such non persons expect moral/ethical behaviour from Baha'is in
good standing?
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret.
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism.
What did the 'Grumpies" have to do with any of this? It was I who suggested
that you both were egging Martin on, and it was on the basis of an oral report
I'd received, rather than one of the forwarded messages I usually got from
Nima's own 'mole'. However, I got a bit confused as to what information I got
from whom and in what form.
Oh you poor dear thing.....got "a bit confused" by the abundance of private
conversations
coming your way did you? The "forwarded" unethical, immoral, unprincipled,
private-
"messages [you] usually got from [a/some] 'mole/s' " gave you {in your
unofficial capacity)
some confusion Susan?
Probably caused by some residue of conscience gasping for air.

"What did the 'Grumpies" have to do with any of this?"

Cultural indoctrination and training........nobody reaches such a high
standard of
unethical bitchood without assistance.


Rod.
Randy Burns
2004-01-03 20:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Rod didn't you know that Baha'i laws, values, principles, morals and ethics
apply equally to all Baha'is, save for those who are more equal than others?

Son, it sounds like you need a bit more 'deepening'.

Cheers, Randy
--
Post by Rod
And this just slides off your pen without pause or hesitation doesn't it
Susan?
These are Baha'is you are talking about aren't they Susan?
Individuals governed in conduct by values, principles, morals and ethics
'Divine'
in origin?
It was quite ok for them to lurk and spy and listen in and "spill the beans"
because-
well...hell...they had been wrongly subscribed- and there was nothing
AO/official
about it- and whatever they spied on and reported back was motivated by the
highest motive/s of protecting the Faith and its image/interests....so there
was
nothing unprincipled, unethical or slimy about it was there?
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-03 22:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Rod,

Your comments are a stunning example for the Big Guys on the Hill to see
of how Susan plays the Big Ball Game. It's okay to trash your friends
(or promote spying) as long as it's kept secret and not too many people
hear about it. When I told some of our mutual friends what she'd said
about them, she didn't say she'd done wrong but acted like I was
Anti-Christ. When she finally gets on the House of Justice, as she's
working towards when it gets properly educated, the world's got payment
due! --Cal
Rod
2004-01-04 16:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Rod,
Your comments are a stunning example for the Big Guys on the Hill to see
of how Susan plays the Big Ball Game.
Will she get a pay rise as a consequence? ;-)
Post by Cal E. Rollins
It's okay to trash your friends
(or promote spying) as long as it's kept secret and not too many people
hear about it.
Well...that could have been the case Cal....before she started publicly
trumpeting her position.
Post by Cal E. Rollins
When I told some of our mutual friends what she'd said
about them, she didn't say she'd done wrong but acted like I was
Anti-Christ.
You hadn't used the terms 'furphy' or 'red herring' had you?
Pat seems to think that sets her off.

(You don't have 'WunWhirl Order 666' on your number plate do you? ;-)
Post by Cal E. Rollins
When she finally gets on the House of Justice, as she's
working towards when it gets properly educated, the world's got payment
due!
Why would she seek the lesser position when she has assumed the entitlements
of Guardian to declare enemies of faith?

Rod
Dermod Ryder
2004-01-04 02:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
If you'd been paying close enough attention you would have known by now that
the AO had never placed 'moles' on Zuhur.
Yup ... and I'm the Kerry Recruit!
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret.
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism.
What did the 'Grumpies" have to do with any of this?
That both they and their lackeys are total arseholes was, I think, the
association I made. Of course I was exagerating ... but only where the
lackeys were concerned.
Post by Susan Maneck
It was I who suggested
that you both were egging Martin on, and it was on the basis of an oral report
I'd received, rather than one of the forwarded messages I usually got from
Nima's own 'mole'. However, I got a bit confused as to what information I got
from whom and in what form.
Changed story? You said you had the posts concerned but couldn't find them.

Let us not forget that there was great interest in Zuhur to find out who Al
Marbig was. Old Mojoman got the cacks in a twist then and was really pissed
that the AO couldn't sanction the guilty parties behind Brave New World. Of
course the names of those involved (some of them at any rate) were an open
secret on Zuhur which possibly excited and aroused the otherwise dormant
organs of the AO. That was something that amused me enormously - this great
need to "protect" the faith from the depredations of Al Marbig and the gang
of gadabouts on and behind BNW aroused legions of ABMs from their slumbers
and when they were led to the perpetrators, there wasn't a feckin' thing
they could do to "protect" their image. So what exactly do these ABMs
protect the faith from? The zeal of its own adherents?

Then Mork the Dork exhibited his knowledge of Zuhur posts where I and, I
think, Steve Scholl, were accused by him of fomenting schism. Slightest
problem was that we weren't doing that but suggesting it was inevitable.
And, Great Shades of Spiritual Corrosion, a certain Professor disagreed with
us.

Mind you, I've changed my mind on that now. I don't see a schism being
inevitable now - there aren't enough intelligent people within the Bahai
community at the moment to organise one. They have all left!
Susan Maneck
2004-01-04 04:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dermod Ryder
You said you had the posts concerned but couldn't find them.
I couldn't. Later I realized it was because this information wasn't in
archives, it came from a telephone conversation.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Let us not forget that there was great interest in Zuhur to find out who Al
Marbig was. Old Mojoman got the cacks in a twist then and was really pissed
that the AO couldn't sanction the guilty parties behind Brave New World.
Actually, I think the British NSA was contemplating legal action at the time
for forging a document with their name on it, as I recall. There was no
discussion of sanctions that I was aware of.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of
course the names of those involved (some of them at any rate) were an open
secret on Zuhur
They were until Cal and Nima spilled the beans. And by the way, I think when
the UK NSA found out who Al Marbig was they backed off, especially when it
became obvious who was doing the more malicious stuff. ;-}
Post by Dermod Ryder
So what exactly do these ABMs
protect the faith from?
ABMs generally have nothing to do with the Internet.
Post by Dermod Ryder
The zeal of its own adherents?
Sometimes. Ask George and Mark. ;-}
Post by Dermod Ryder
, I
think, Steve Scholl, were accused by him of fomenting schism. Slightest
problem was that we weren't doing that but suggesting it was inevitable.
Interesting that you now admit there were such posts.
Post by Dermod Ryder
And, Great Shades of Spiritual Corrosion, a certain Professor disagreed with
us.
Yeah, he thought the whole idea was a no-brainer, didn't he?


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
2004-01-04 10:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
You said you had the posts concerned but couldn't find them.
I couldn't. Later I realized it was because this information wasn't in
archives, it came from a telephone conversation.
But at the time you said you had the posts on your old computer. Engage and
check information channels before spouting. Such elementary mistakes tend to
reinforce doubt and loss of credibility in everything you say.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Let us not forget that there was great interest in Zuhur to find out who Al
Marbig was. Old Mojoman got the cacks in a twist then and was really pissed
that the AO couldn't sanction the guilty parties behind Brave New World.
Actually, I think the British NSA was contemplating legal action at the time
for forging a document with their name on it, as I recall. There was no
discussion of sanctions that I was aware of.
This is pretty strong stuff - somewhat on a par with the idea circulated at
the time that BNW ought to be suppressed because it might have confused
ordinary BIGS and others, as it looked so like official publications.

You seem very well informed on this. What document was allegedly forged?
I'm not aware of one.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of
course the names of those involved (some of them at any rate) were an open
secret on Zuhur
They were until Cal and Nima spilled the beans. And by the way, I think when
the UK NSA found out who Al Marbig was they backed off, especially when it
became obvious who was doing the more malicious stuff. ;-}
The UK NSA had no case against anybody connected with BNW, so cut the crap
about backing off. Nobody was ever libelled in it - great care was taken to
only print what could be backed up and corroborated. Many were lampooned,
criticised and satirised but that does not give rise for legal action - free
press etc. The only thing that could have given cause for legal action was
the dissemination of false information - there was none.

I do thank you for confirming that BNW achieved its aim. Nothing is so
upsetting to politicians in general and those of the AO, in particular, than
the knowledge that they are being laughed at. Since the time of BNW the AO
has been definitely muted regarding the activities of those who challenge
the crud that emanates from it - so muted in fact that it has stopped
providing material for any satirist.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
So what exactly do these ABMs
protect the faith from?
ABMs generally have nothing to do with the Internet.
Impotent - in other words? So why waste time having them?
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
The zeal of its own adherents?
Sometimes. Ask George and Mark. ;-}
Splashie proved just how impotent they are.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
, I
think, Steve Scholl, were accused by him of fomenting schism. Slightest
problem was that we weren't doing that but suggesting it was inevitable.
Interesting that you now admit there were such posts.
Actually their full text was released and published at the time to
demonstrate that Mork the Dork was talking other than through engagement
with his intellect. There was nothing in them other than that one or two of
us thought the AO was heading down a road that would result in schism.
Apparently comment like that is interpreted as meaning those who think that
schism will happen, are actively organising one. In the time since then,
none of us have done that. The capability for interpretation within the AO
is so deficient at the moment that maybe we are seeing the full effect of
the lack of a living Guardian.

Or could it be that the Great Living Spiritual Corrosion actively stopped us
and saved the Loonies and the Grumpies from their own follies? Is that the
twist that has to be put on it? If it is and, I can see no other, Haifa
indeed owes him a great debt!
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
And, Great Shades of Spiritual Corrosion, a certain Professor disagreed with
us.
Yeah, he thought the whole idea was a no-brainer, didn't he?
Yeah - he thought it wouldn't happen but, being of a superior intellect, he
could also see we weren't organising one. But, like I said, all the
brightest people have left or been heaved from the BF.
Susan Maneck
2004-01-04 16:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dermod Ryder
But at the time you said you had the posts on your old computer.
That's what I thought.
Post by Dermod Ryder
This is pretty strong stuff - somewhat on a par with the idea circulated at
the time that BNW ought to be suppressed because it might have confused
ordinary BIGS and others, as it looked so like official publications.
The two things were connected.
Post by Dermod Ryder
What document was allegedly forged?
I don't recall. I'm sure it was a spoof on them.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Nobody was ever libelled in it - great care was taken to
only print what could be backed up and corroborated.
Come on. The entire website was a spoof. >
Post by Dermod Ryder
Post by Susan Maneck
ABMs generally have nothing to do with the Internet.
Impotent - in other words? So why waste time having them?
No, this isn't their job. ABMs activities are limited to a certain geography.
The internet isn't. Most ABMs for protection spend the bulk of their time
trying to help local communities work together effectively.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Splashie proved just how impotent they are.
Must be. They don't have any torture chambers after all.




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
2004-01-04 23:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
But at the time you said you had the posts on your old computer.
That's what I thought.
And you wrong about that and my egging on somebody to get himself declared a
CB.
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
This is pretty strong stuff - somewhat on a par with the idea circulated at
the time that BNW ought to be suppressed because it might have confused
ordinary BIGS and others, as it looked so like official publications.
The two things were connected.
Where is the connection between an allegation of egging on a potential CB
and a satitical e-zine that so captured the AO ethos that it wanted to have
it suppressed?
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
What document was allegedly forged?
I don't recall. I'm sure it was a spoof on them.
Forgery is the criminal offence of falsifying a document with an intent to
deceive - a spoof is somethinf else entirely. Do I conclude that the AO
cannot distinguish between them?
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Nobody was ever libelled in it - great care was taken to
only print what could be backed up and corroborated.
Come on. The entire website was a spoof. >
Actually it wasn't!
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Dermod Ryder
Post by Susan Maneck
ABMs generally have nothing to do with the Internet.
Impotent - in other words? So why waste time having them?
No, this isn't their job. ABMs activities are limited to a certain geography.
The internet isn't. Most ABMs for protection spend the bulk of their time
trying to help local communities work together effectively.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Splashie proved just how impotent they are.
Must be. They don't have any torture chambers after all.
But not for lack of wanting them.

Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-04 22:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Susan,

Cal and Nima didn't spill any beans about who Marbig was. You
apparently did by publishing abroad the memo from Dermod I inadvertently
sent you. You seem to have gotten great pleasure in doing this, since I
let some of the imminent and eminent scholars in the Faith know what you
were really saying about them behind their backs while calling them
___-jan. So let's get your facs right when it's time for law-suits to
start flying as you say the NSAs are contemplating. I've got one of the
best lawyers in the country just waiting for a taste of pigs. I just
hope he doesn't become a Black Muslim any time soon. --Cal
Rod
2004-01-02 09:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Snip
Post by Dermod Ryder
Being total arseholes they couldn't accurately read or interpret
the information given them as to what was actually going there, which
explains why Steve Scholl and I were accused of fomenting Covenant breaking
faction and schism.
Which one of you would be Guardian?

Steve S has Guardian qualities.
'Grim Guardian' has a certain ring to it.

Personaly....I would like to see Billy Connolly in the job.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Even though it was explained to them, they still think
that's what was going on there.
Why should an explination change a a pre set preconception?

Rod.
Paul Hammond
2004-01-02 17:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dermod Ryder
Post by Sufi Babi
Actually, sans Juan, the real moles turned out to be people like you,
Karen Bacquet, Paul Hammond, Dermod Ryder, et al., and now that you
are all kissing Susan Maneck's ass in full public view there is little
doubt in any sane, objective person's mind.
Ass kissing has never been my style!
Mine neither - that's why Steve and me, and later your
good self, fell out with President Captain Nemo here.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Post by Sufi Babi
Anyway, seems like TRB largely consists of the same sorry cast of
real-life middle-aged losers ("L") going around the same stupid
discussions about the same irrelevent drivel regarding the same
insignificant Amway cult with prayer.
Are you including Splasher in this club? Just asking, as much of the real
drivel around here originates with him.
Nemo appears to think the Splasher is full of historical
insight - which says more about Nemo's judgement than
Really Poor's to me.

Paul
Freethought110
2004-01-03 23:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hammond
Nemo appears to think the Splasher is full of historical
insight - which says more about Nemo's judgement than
Really Poor's to me.
No, jackass, I say George has more integrity than all of you because
he refuses to play by your rules.

Limey wanna cracker?
Freethought110
2004-01-04 00:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dermod Ryder
Ass kissing has never been my style!
That's what you say here. But I know better especially how you have
attached your face permanently to that fat celluloid redneck behind of
your guru Karen Bacquet. You are a Karenist minion and have willingly
compromised your mojo to be part of some groupthink Karenist clique,
probably because George Flemming scared the beejasus out of you, so
don't tell me you're not an ass kisser, because that is what you are.
Karen aside, the fact that all you guys are queing up here to kiss the
brown ring of Dr Maniac reinforces that you are all brown-nosers.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Of course, as I told you at the time, Cal wasn't the mole on Zuhur. That he
was set up as one was proof positive that he wasn't one - one never ever
sacrifices the source of one's information.
Yes, you did. But pray tell why were Comrade Marshall and his
unsaintly so called "wife" so desirous to have Cal kicked off and
designate him the mole?
Post by Dermod Ryder
events have proven how much the
Grumpies and their lackeys feared Zuhur and the machinations that were
ongoing.
If they knew who and what I get up to and with these days, and what I
have planned in the future, the pharmacies in Zionistan would run out
of Immodium AD for the next decade (ask Patricia Kohli what that
means). I am more dangerous now then I ever was, while you Karenists
are just pathetic hangers on without any mojo whatsoever. Of course
your barks were always louder than your bites. I hit these fascist
so-and-sos so hard in the past 18 months that they got off their
good-for-nothing stools and actually responded in 8 pages to the PR
nightmare they created for themselves and which I capitalized on with
interest. Not even Juan Cole has accomplished what I have in teaching
these sorry fools a lesson they will not forget soon, and that was
only the first opening notes of a long symphony yet to begin.
Post by Dermod Ryder
Are you including Splasher in this club?
George has more integrity than you because he won't play by your
games.
Steve Marshall
2004-01-04 05:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Freethought110
especially how you have
attached your face permanently to that fat celluloid (sic) redneck behind of
your guru...
...all you guys are queing (sic) up here to kiss the
brown ring of....
You do seem to have intimate knowledge of a number of bottoms, Nima.
Post by Freethought110
Yes, you did. But pray tell why were Comrade Marshall and...
...so desirous to have Cal kicked off and
designate him the mole?
Still waiting on the documentation for that one. :-)
Post by Freethought110
I hit these fascist
so-and-sos so hard in the past 18 months that they got off their
good-for-nothing stools and actually responded in 8 pages to the PR
nightmare they created for themselves and which I capitalized on with
interest. Not even Juan Cole has accomplished what I have in teaching
these sorry fools a lesson they will not forget soon, and that was
only the first opening notes of a long symphony yet to begin.
I missed that. Do tell us what happened.

cheers
Steve
Susan Maneck
2004-01-04 16:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marshall
I missed that. Do tell us what happened.
Dear Steve,

Nima is under the delusion that the House's recent message to Iran was somehow
'inspired' by his attacks against them. If you can't see any connection, you
are in good company.

warmest, Susan

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Freethought110
2004-01-04 23:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Steve Marshall
I missed that. Do tell us what happened.
Dear Steve,
Nima is under the delusion that the House's recent message to Iran was somehow
'inspired' by his attacks against them.
Indeed it was and everyone among Iranians knows it. For your
edification:

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=NITV&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=newscache%24ys3r2h%248261%241%40elise.onthenet.com.au&rnum=11

Please note the following questions posed in the Open Letter to the
uhj:

1) Do you believe in the democratic form of government?
2) Do you believe in the separation of religion and the state?
3) Do you believe in self-determination and independence for Iran?
4) What lessons have you learnt from the last Revolution?
5) What do you truly think of the activities of Habib Sabet, Hojabr
Yazdani
and Dr Ayadi and co under the last Pahlavi regime before the
Revolution?
6) What is your attitude to an individual Baha'i having a program on,
let us
say for the sake of argument, a network run by the Iranian Communist
Party,
the National Front or even the MKO?

--

There is no doubt whatsoever that my posting the abovementioned and
other assorted items last year on the connection of the Haifan baha'i
cult with the monarchists ultimately produced this letter and their
rather disengenuous dumping of their Pahlavi benefactor in the
baytu'l-jahl's 8 page response. Paid hacks such as Dr Maniac, Patricia
Kholi and Paulette HamHead can deny all they want but my public expose
did its trick. Nothing else can even come close to explaining the
reasoning for the production of the bayt'ul-jahl's rather pathetic
letter.
Cal E. Rollins
2004-01-04 21:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Steve,

Well, you may be waiting for some kind of documentation from Nima, but I
vividly remembered the chill I received when I read your criticism of me
on the list and your and Bill Duquet's incredible readiness to think and
label me the Zuhur Mole. Four day old fish is what the Irish detectives
on BBC frequently call it. --Cal
Steve Marshall
2004-01-03 02:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sufi Babi
I'm outta here and won't be back for awhile!
Not bad, Nima. You've only been back twice in the last six days - 30
December and 2 January.
Post by Sufi Babi
Everyone who was subscribed to Zuhur19 had to go
through rigorous process of identifying who they were before being
subscribed to the list..
Right Nima.... :-)

"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.

Here's an indication of David's views, from 1997, before Zuhur
started:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Mckenny8.htm

cheers
Steve
Susan Maneck
2004-01-03 11:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
Dear Steve,

Nima knew who it was he was subscribing without even asking them. As for the
person who called me, he did so because he *did* feel obligated by the
no-forwarding rule. At the same time, he was deeply disturbed by what he saw
going on there.

warmest, Susan

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Rod
2004-01-03 14:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
Dear Steve,
Nima knew who it was he was subscribing without even asking them.
Here resides the moral injunction- the thief was mistakenly sent
a key......any subsequent theft is to be expected and deemed ok/ethical.
Post by Susan Maneck
As for the person who called me, he did so because he *did* feel
obligated by the no-forwarding rule.
So he avioded breaching it by providing you with an oral report
rather than a transcript?

Heck.....that makes a world of difference.
Post by Susan Maneck
At the same time, he was deeply disturbed by what he saw
going on there.
OH! Rightly so! Illegal and immoral activity, bomb plots, drug
running, conspiracies....all the activities that would "deeply
disturb" any citizen of concience and oblige them to breach a
trust and the commonly held no forwarding rule.

Hell...as I recal the "deeply disturbing" plot- Nima was assigned
to blow up the car park when Karen released the duck...this would
enable Dermod to sneak round the back and slip on the safron Guardian
robe.........it's a dam good thing that the "deeply disturbing" plan
was exposed to the light of day hey Susan?

It would be pointless to ask what "deeply disturbing" vision was
seen to transpire on a private Email List that would oblige such an
unethical breach.........wouldn't it Susan?

A handfull of people talking privately off line about the Baha'i Faith
is indeed something to keep an eye on......who knows what evil it may
lead to.

Rod.
Freethought110
2004-01-03 23:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
Dear Steve,
Nima knew who it was he was subscribing without even asking them.
Bullshit! What is your evidence, bitch? If it is that dishonest,
spineless cultist twat Terry Culhane you are talking about, I asked
him if he wanted to subscribe to Zuhur19 and he said yes. No one - and
that means NO ONE - was subcribed to Zuhur without wishing to be
subscribed.
Post by Susan Maneck
As for the
person who called me, he did so because he *did* feel obligated by the
no-forwarding rule. At the same time, he was deeply disturbed by what he saw
going on there.
You are lying as always. But what else is one to expect from a baha'i.
Paul Hammond
2004-01-04 15:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Freethought110
Post by Susan Maneck
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
Dear Steve,
Nima knew who it was he was subscribing without even asking them.
Bullshit! What is your evidence, bitch?
The evidence is in the tenor of your posts, Persian parrot.


If it is that dishonest,
Post by Freethought110
spineless cultist twat Terry Culhane you are talking about, I asked
him if he wanted to subscribe to Zuhur19 and he said yes. No one - and
that means NO ONE - was subcribed to Zuhur without wishing to be
subscribed.
Right - so you knew all about Quixotic Deluge all the time
he was quietly subscribed to Zuhur, did you? Steve found
out about him after he tried to transfer to Irfan when
you closed down Zuhur in a paddy because me and Steve
wouldn't kow-tow to your bullying over there.

You ranted on in a paranoid fashion about "Baha'i spies"
all the time you were running Zuhur19, and yet there was
an obvious spy there all the time you were running
the list that you took no action against - in fact, you
might *even* have subscribed this loyalist to the
list without first asking him if he wanted to be subscribed.

What a dumb asshole you are, ranting fuckwit!

Paul
Freethought110
2004-01-04 23:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hammond
Right - so you knew all about Quixotic Deluge all the time
he was quietly subscribed to Zuhur, did you?
No, limey parrot, I did not. There was no such person on Zuhur19 with
that name or handle whom I subscribed.
Post by Paul Hammond
Steve found
out about him after he tried to transfer to Irfan when
you closed down Zuhur in a paddy because me and Steve
wouldn't kow-tow to your bullying over there.
How would your bum chum find out since he was already kicked off Zuhur
and therefore not privy to the list of subscribers to the list.
Post by Paul Hammond
You ranted on in a paranoid fashion about "Baha'i spies"
all the time you were running Zuhur19, and yet there was
an obvious spy there all the time you were running
the list that you took no action against - in fact, you
might *even* have subscribed this loyalist to the
list without first asking him if he wanted to be subscribed.
Evidence? None. No such person was subscribed by either Alison or
myself to Zuhur19. Obviously Randy did it.
Post by Paul Hammond
What a dumb asshole you are, ranting fuckwit!
Takes one to know one and in that department you're the
incontrovertible master bar none, limey cocksucker.
Freethought110
2004-01-04 23:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hammond
The evidence is in the tenor of your posts, Persian parrot.
How unoriginally yet typically limey of you. The tenor of your posts
long ago revealed you as the AO mole, limey parrot. No one with any
sense or integrity and not jaded the Twilight Zone world of baha'ism
doubts it anymore.

Limey wanna kiwi crack to smell?
Freethought110
2004-01-03 23:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marshall
Post by Sufi Babi
I'm outta here and won't be back for awhile!
Not bad, Nima. You've only been back twice in the last six days - 30
December and 2 January.
Post by Sufi Babi
Everyone who was subscribed to Zuhur19 had to go
through rigorous process of identifying who they were before being
subscribed to the list..
Right Nima.... :-)
Yeah right, indeed, Kiwi shagger. Go ask your so called wife who was
also monitoring subscribtions since she was the moderator. If David
Bickman or whoever the feck this cultist was subscribed under false
pretenses after Alison and I asked him for a bio explaining his views,
that was completely beyond mine or Alison's control. We went on the
pre-subscribtion bio of every applicant as to whether they were suited
or not suited to subscribe to the list. Ask your so called wife, or is
it the case that in your fake "smokescreen" marriage there is no real
communication, Kiwi shagger.
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
No, I didn't. The name does not even ring a bell and I knew every
person who subscribed and where they stood on the AO - and if they
were A$$hOle kissers they didn't get on, as simple as that. That was
the policy I pursued to the end until your sock puppet Randy Burns
screwed it up.
Post by Steve Marshall
Here's an indication of David's views, from 1997, before Zuhur
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Mckenny8.htm
Then this person obviously lied about their views to get on Zuhur19.
But I doubt this person was subscribed by either Alison or myself.
Given how core dishonest and sleazy you baha'is of all stripes are, it
wouldn't surprise me in the least that this person was subscribed by
yourselves in order to later put the blame on someone else. That is
the kind of lowlives all you baha'is are.
Steve Marshall
2004-01-04 05:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Freethought110
Post by Steve Marshall
Post by Sufi Babi
Everyone who was subscribed to Zuhur19 had to go
through rigorous process of identifying who they were before being
subscribed to the list..
We went on the
pre-subscribtion bio of every applicant as to whether they were suited
or not suited to subscribe to the list.
Oh, THAT rigorous process.
Post by Freethought110
Post by Steve Marshall
"Quixoticdeluge" was on Zuhur from its inception, so I guess you knew
that he was David Bikman.
No, I didn't. The name does not even ring a bell and I knew every
person who subscribed and where they stood on the AO - and if they
were A$$hOle kissers they didn't get on, as simple as that. That was
the policy I pursued to the end
Thanks for the further detailing of the rigorous process. I think we
understand all we need to know.

ka kite
Steve
Paul Hammond
2003-12-30 16:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marshall
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Happily Nima, as he
pointed out to me, wasn't duped by duplicitous Baha'is ...
and set a trap for the real mole as you well know.
No, Cal. All Nima did was kick off folks like Bill Duquet without any
evidence. The person who managed the list after Nima handed it over
dumped D**** B*****, who was hiding on the list under a pseudonym, and
who was was most likely a real mole.
cheers
Steve
Last I heard, that suspicious-looking DB chap was hanging
about in the vicinity of one of London's many bridges - do
you think he had dial-up from his perspex box?

All joking aside, however, for all the paranoia emanating
from the fulminating side of the antipodes, there *was*
one silent spy lurking on Nima's lists all that while
that he somehow never got around to booting off.

Paul
Paul Hammond
2003-12-30 18:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Pat,
No. I've forgiven Paul for joining in on the gaggle of geese who tried
to convince Nima on Zuhur that I was the mole.
I didn't do this.

I made no suggestions that anyone was a mole.

I said that we should give Bill Duquet the benefit of the
doubt.

Then, you suggested that I was the mole.

Then Nima ran with the idea.

Here we are, 2 years later, and Nima is still running
with it, and you are making up shit that didn't happen.

You are an arsehole and a liar, but then, that is
the effect you strive to achieve when not being
buggered by the heir to the British throne, right?

Paul
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 23:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

Like Darrick you seem obsessed with the process of buggery. It makes no
sense that you could be a Baha'i because Baha'is are not such-obsessed
considering Baha'u'llah, sans interpretation, explicitely forbids
buggery of black boy slaves by white married men. So before you become
a Baha'i maybe you should have some therapy to get over your obsession
and to stop acting like one of the pig persons whose patina and aroma
you're more and more taking on. You were more intriguing when you were
an enigma. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 23:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

Why would I suggest you're a mole on TRB? Every employee of the House
of Justice and the entire Baha'i world knows who you are (except maybe
yourself). One of the people on one of my lists told the group to check
out TRB to find out what the demi-monde, underbelly of the Baha'i world
is about. Why do you think I'm trying to be nice to the likes of you
when you act like a London gutter snipe from Soho or wherever such
hangout? I'm socially conscious and want the world to think so, too.
--Cal
Rod
2003-12-31 00:17:36 UTC
Permalink
being buggered by the heir to the British throne, right?
Paul
Dear Paul.....The following is a post I stole from my brother-
.............................

According to startling research by leading historians, 500 years ago an
illegitimate bastard was placed upon the throne! 8^o.

And as Charles, Will and Harry show, the tradition continues! B^)

But all is not lost, a direct descendent of the legitimate claimant is
an ex-jackaroo living in Australia..

LONG LIVE KING MIKE! Death to the Usurpers! B^D

" Dr Michael Jones, an acclaimed historical biographer, believes he
has proved a vital fact that should bring shudders to the Queen and
her family: their right to rule is based on a lie that has been perpetuated
for more than 500 years. It comes down to the fact that King Edward IV ,
who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was not of royal blood -he was the
illegitimate son of a French archer." - The Herald Sun 28/12/2003

"The crucial evidence comes from a document Dr Jones recently discovered
in the library of Rouen Cathedral in France.
It proves, he says, that at the time of Edward IV's conception, his parents
were 200km apart.
Edward's "father", Richard, Duke of York, was leading a skirmishing party
against the French at Pontoise, near Paris. Edward's mother, Lady Cicely
Neville
- based at Rouen -was apparently deeply engrossed in the company of a local
archer.

This single fact invalidates the claim to sovereignty of the most famous of
English monarchs, from Elizabeth I to Charles II to Victoria and the
Georges.
For if Edward IV was illegitimate --and Dr Jones believes he has found
the proof- the heirs of his younger brother, George, Duke of Clarence,
are the rightful inheritors of the English throne. "

And thus, the 14th Earl of London (direct descendant
of the Duke of Clarence) is the rightful King!

"Michael Hastings, 62, a widower from Jerilderie, in southern NSW,
has just been told he and his ancestors are, in all probability,
the true inheritors of the English throne.
"Just call me Mike," says Mr Hastings, "everyone else does." "

B^D Such becoming modesty, how unlike the repulsive Royal
rugrats, spivs and drug takers! All Hail King Mike!
A genuine true-blue, A Prince, nay, a King among men!

"..the last great Plantagenet -the man who, it is claimed,
should by rights be King Michael I of England and living in Buckingham
Palace.
Instead, he is in a T-shirt and shorts, sitting in a bungalow with a glass
of beer in hand alter a hard day's work"

You little Bewdy! That settles it! Long Live King Mike!

"Mr Hastings didn't realise his claim to the throne until Dr Jones
and the TV crew contacted him.

"Strewth!" was his reaction. Will he be returning to Britain,
to his birthright and all those palaces, money and servants?

"No," he says slowly, "I don't think so. I love Australia."

And we love Good King Mike, the Aussie Monarch of
England Ireland and Wales! B^D

Let him stay here, our first local sovereign, and the true King
of Britain. ..let the usurpers be chained in the tower and
await his antipodean mercy, let the lands and titles be seized
and the pommie bastards bend their knee to their true king! B^D

"This is no joke but historical fact"

Bloody oath mate! Restore our Rightful King to the throne! B^D
Steve Marshall
2003-12-27 05:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
I do remember that you, Steve, and a
couple of you other liberals suggested to Nima that I was the mole on
Zuhur when you well knew who the real mole was.
No, you don't remember that correctly, Cal. I was of the opinion that
you were unsafe, not that you were a mole:

Here's a copy of my 10/1/01post, with identifying names removed:

----starts----
"I think Cal made a serious error of judgement in forwarding a
message containing parts of *listname* posts. More importantly, his
subsequent comments indicate that he doesn't understand the effect,
individually and collectively, on *listname*. Consequently I feel that
there is a safety issue if he remains on the list.

1. ***** asked Cal to forward a message to *listname*. Cal told *****
he'd sent it direct to the members of the list, but it seems that very
few received it. He forwarded it to one person who is not on the list.
The story just doesn't hold together for me.

2. Cal says that his forwarding of *****'s message doesn't concern
*listname*, and that he "forwarded nothing to ***** from *listname*."
I disagree strongly - he forwarded an email containing a *listname*
post to various people, including one person who is very much not on
the list.

If Cal doesn't understand that he's broken a list rule, and that there
have been bad consequences, then I think he should be removed so that
the list is safer for those subscribed to it.

If I felt that Cal had come clean and learned from the experience,
then I'd be happy to put it in the past and move on. Instead, Cal
seems to be saying that he'd be justified in doing the same thing
tomorrow - and I find that unacceptable."
----ends----

The mole was D**** B*****, who was happily watching folks like Bill
Duquet get the rap.

ka kite
Steve



ka kite
Steve
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-30 17:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Steve,

You're being disingenuously circuitous as usual, especially when you
know it was Dermod who sent his response to me asking that I send it on
to the Zuhur list. I sent it to those I knew were on the list and to
Susan the Pig Queen by mistake. And, boy, did her manic response
demonstrate the origins of her surname! Her Sowness wallowed in the mud
as she sent the swill-caked page onto the Guys in Haifa. The question
you might ask, as others have, is why I didn't tell Dermod to send his
message himself, since he was on the list. I've sure asked myself that
question. But no more being Mr. Nice Guy for you pork butts.

So all this "safe stuff" and speculation is just a guise for something
else. Both Nima and I know what it is, so come off it. --Cal
Steve Marshall
2003-12-31 01:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Steve,
You're being disingenuously circuitous as usual, especially when you
know it was Dermod who sent his response to me asking that I send it on
to the Zuhur list. I sent it to those I knew were on the list and to
Susan the Pig Queen by mistake. And, boy, did her manic response
demonstrate the origins of her surname! Her Sowness wallowed in the mud
as she sent the swill-caked page onto the Guys in Haifa. The question
you might ask, as others have, is why I didn't tell Dermod to send his
message himself, since he was on the list. I've sure asked myself that
question. But no more being Mr. Nice Guy for you pork butts.
So all this "safe stuff" and speculation is just a guise for something
else. Both Nima and I know what it is, so come off it. --Cal
Something "intuitively obvious", perhaps? :-)

No Cal, you've lost track of the issue. You said I called you a mole.
I said, no, I called you "unsafe". This is the part where you look
through the archives and come up with a post from me that calls you a
mole. Nothing circuitous about that.

cheers
Steve
Paul Hammond
2003-12-30 18:16:16 UTC
Permalink
You are an arsehole and a liar, Cal.

But then, that's the effect you were aiming for, right?
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-19 22:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Brid,

I just wish I'd known about Queen Charlotte being black when I was
muddling through English Literature classes. Maybe I'd have developed
some enthusiasm for the Royals and not so critical of the horsey looks
of the family before Princess Di burst upon the scene to change their
looks, hopefully forever. Great fun! Thanks again. --Cal
Brid
2003-12-20 20:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Brid,
I just wish I'd known about Queen Charlotte being black when I was
muddling through English Literature classes. Maybe I'd have developed
some enthusiasm for the Royals and not so critical of the horsey looks
of the family before Princess Di burst upon the scene to change their
looks, hopefully forever. Great fun! Thanks again. --Cal
Glad you enjoyed it. It was news to me too. I'm ashamed to say I'd
heard of very few of the people featured in the history section. I
knew of the black Chartist, Cuffay and the nursing pioneer we talked
about once before, Mary Seacole, but I didn't know that one of the
Cato Street conspirators was a black man, nor that he was a victim of
the last public decapitation in Britain. Sounds like there is a lot of
history waiting to be written here, just like that unwritten chapter
on slavery in the Baha'i Faith.

Brid
Sufi Baha'i
2003-12-23 21:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Some of these Black web pages remind me of the opening from one of
Monty Python's sketches, they're talking about the English
countryside, and they say it was the home of Sun Yat Sen, and a bunch
of people who had never even been to England.


There's a potrait of Queen Charlotte at
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG4257

Queen Charlotte was the wife of King George III (the subject of the
film 'The Madness of King George'). She was born in 1744 as Princess
Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz. The first time that the couple met
was at their wedding on the 22 September 1761! King George's choice of
bride was governed by the laws of Britain and of the Holy Roman Empire
(he was also Elector of Hanover). The Act of Settlement laid down that
the King must not marry a Roman Catholic and the Holy Roman Empire
that he must marry into 'a princely house'. The Kings advisors were
sent to the continent to find a suitable Protestant bride. It seems
that Queen Charlotte was chosen because she was not too headstrong, a
criterion brought about by the reaction to the influence that Queen
Caroline had over King George II. She was described as 'no beauty' or
worse. She certainly was a strong woman, she had 15 children and lived
to an age of 74. Over all she seems to have been a devoted wife and
mother, little is known of her as a person because she complied so
much with the views and wishes of the King.
Post by Brid
Post by Cal E. Rollins
Paul, Pat, Dermod, Errol, and Alma (heaven help me),
Maybe we're all cousins. Read this article by Runoko Rashidi who talks
about the African presence in medieval England, Ireland, and Scotland.
www.cwo.com/~/ucumi/british.html
Paul, you say you don't care about your black one drop of blood. Well,
trot on over to your Mormon genealogists and get them to prove you have
some. Blood, that is, instead of that ice water. --Cal
Cal,
Knowing your interest in the British Royal Family, had you heard about
the black antecedents of George III's Queen, Charlotte? She was
supposed to be descended from a black branch of the Portugese Royal
Family.
http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/pages/citizens/queen.htm
Pat Kohli
2003-12-24 00:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sufi Baha'i
Some of these Black web pages remind me of the opening from one of
Monty Python's sketches, they're talking about the English
countryside, and they say it was the home of Sun Yat Sen, and a bunch
of people who had never even been to England.
There's a potrait of Queen Charlotte at
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG4257
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG4257&collectionSection=work

Obviously she did not relax her hair.

- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
2003-12-25 22:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Sufi,

Thanks for the Charlotte site. She doesn't look black to me, and the
site doesn't say she had black ancestry. I wonder what her husband
thought? Since he had all those kids, I guess he didn't care overly
much. Although Thomas Jefferson had plenty of black kids... --Cal
Pat Kohli
2003-12-19 14:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Cal,

I'm saying "we are all cousins (or brothers and sisters when we are not
married)". I'm saying "there is no _maybe_ to it". Anything less is false
consciousness.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Loading...