Re: What if a Guardian were imprisoned?


"Shahriar" <freindom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq2u41$j4l$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
very likely of you, making conclusion before even hearing the idea!!

I wasn't looking for ideas - I was looking for evidence. And it was
pretty obvious from early on in this dialogue that you are possessed of
nothing that would pass for evidence.

did not matter, you didn't bother to read a subsequent line before
expressing yourself, that amounts to hummm ... I guess prejudgment or as
they
say "prejudice".

Actually I read all messages before deciding whether or not to respond.
Those to which I respond are read again before the response is composed.

There is one exception to this rule which is not material at this time.

<SNIP>
firstly, Mitchell was a paid hire for a person who's animosity with the
Guardian had become obvious to all.

Dr Michell was a professional scientist who was paid a fee for his work.
Unless you have evidence to suggest that his fee was conditional on the
results of his work you have no grounds to challenge him as a professional
expert in his field.

Second, even as a paid hire, Mitchell did never say the document was a
forgery, because:

I suggest that you read his report.

He said "the writing [in the W&T] does not agree with the hypothesis that it
was all written by one person" and "A minute comparison of the
authenticated writing with the writing on every page of the alleged will,
and in particular with the lines 10, 11 and 12 on page 5, has failed to
detect in any part of the will the characteristics of the writing of Abdul
Baha, as shown in the authenticated specimens."

Shoghi claimed that the entire W&T was written by Abdul Baha in his own
handwriting.

It would appear that these two statements are not reconcilable.


a- He never had seen the actual document.

His Report acknowledges this.

b- He had no knowledge of language.

Have you any evidence to support this? Have you any evidence to show that
he needed such knowledge?

I would again refer you to his report and in particular to the certified
copy thereof demonstrated at Mr Glaysher's site. Examination of that report
shows an illustration of the characters that were particularly subject to
examination by him.

c- He could not substantiate such claim by looking at two pages of
photograph of a Xerox copy.

Apparently he could and did. I would refer you to the following: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7263796.stm

You will note that the expert in this case certified the alleged autographs
scrawled on memorabilia to be forgeries. His opinion is corroborated by the
sportsmen concerned who have already testified that they did not sign the
items.

Now if you say that Mitchell could not honestly give the opinion he did on
the basis of examination of Xerox copies, you could be in a position to set
yourself up as an expert available to give evidence in these kinds of cases.
But, like me, you're not a handwriting expert. I'm content to rely on the
expert ... whereas you are not.

d- At most, assuming, that the money he received did not influence his
professional opinion, he only said "the hand writings did not match".

Bit that's the crux. If the handwriting on the W&T is not that of Abdul Baha
then that is not his W&T and is a forgery. Shoghi has claimed that it is in
Abdul Baha's handwriting throughout and is therefore the genuine article.

In the UK experts are expected to give honest opinions based on the exercise
of their expertise. They do not accept fees on a contingency basis. If you
have evidence that Dr Mitchell behaved in an unprofessional manner and
accepted monies from Mrs White in the perpetration of a fraud then please
present that evidence and explain why, given the litigious proclivities of
the BF, Shoghi did not denounce Mitchell as a fraud and report him to the
British Police for prosecution. Given that Mitchell appeared in Court as an
expert witness, I'm sure a lot of defence barristers would have been most
pleased to have had evidence of duplicitous dealings with which to challenge
his credibility.

I would expect you to withdraw these defamatory remarks.

Third, you, and couple of others, have come up with the idea of forgery. I
am afraid, since it has become obvious that your intentions for bringing
up
such idea is not for clarification but to bring contention,

My or somebody else's intentions in the matter are completely irrelevant.
What matters is the integrity of the document. The evidence suggests very
strongly that it is a forgery. If it were otherwise, whatever the state of
my intentions, I could do or say nothing. The evidence is there. Whether
it is accepted or rebutted is entirely up to you and of no great concern to
me.

we care very
little for such intentions to come up with rebottle.

That much is obvious but I must note that, IMHO, you do not re*** or refute
because you lack the hard evidence to fuel such rebuttal or refutation.

furthermore, this case
was presented by the said hiring lady to the then authorities of the land
and was dismissed as nonsense.

And exactly what is your source for this? The British Authorities in
Palestine suggested to Mrs White that she take it to the Court which was the
proper place in which to lay challenge. She declined to do that.

It is my understanding that the W&T was never probated or formally proved at
law.

though this is not related to the subject:
even as Jesus said "if one slapped your right side turn the other cheek",
your people chose to slaughter one another, and when they were half don
with
their own they mobilized waves of bloodthirsty crusaders to even slaughter
more in far lands. was it an act of religious piety or mispresentation of
religion? tell me where Jesus says "kill those who don't believe in me, or
kill does who scorn me, or kill those who disobey me, or kill those who's
skin has different tan ... etc. and didn't the same secular Europe, when
got
their hand on technology constantly rose against one another in
proclaiming
their superiority lettering the earth with scores of innumerable corps?
didn't they kill more people in the secular period, 18-20 century, than
men
did in the whole history of dark ages and not so dark ages combined? No
sir, you
killed each other because you lacked proper education, more importantly
your
inability to value others as you value yourselves. You clearly disobeyed
the
teachings of Christ: "do wish for others as you do with for yourselves".
Were your Pops and bishops, and lords and kings and priests were conceived
in
far lands and imported to europe? how people dare to attribute their
horrible
conducts to teachings of Christ. Your societies and leaders lacked
spirituality then as they do now. under secular or religious governments
alike, you've only promoted your own selfish desires. blaming religion
would
not make your horrifying conducts go away, it just prone you to do the
same
in future and find some other excuses or blame it on the same old
religion.
one day your religion makes you kill one another, other day others
religion makes you kill them. is it the religion or just the voices inside
your heads?

Firstly, it is not just "us" who killed in the name of religion. Now what
does inspire all those suicide bombers way out there in eastern lands but
the promise of paradise if they but kill themselves by waging jihad on the
infidel.

But then, that's the whole point og what I said ... religion is a surefire
motive and impetus for a helluva lot of killing. Dispose of it, as has
happened in Europe especially, since the War, and there's a marked degree of
diminution in aggression and an increase in the desire for fairness and
justice.


from your previous postings, I am assuming that you in true do not read
Bahai material and only go by what you hear on the internet. If you had
the
knowledge, it would have been difficult if not impossible to conclude that
the T&W is the charter of the new world order.

If you want to contradict what Shoghi said that's entirely up to you ... I
just quoted him and left it at that.


unlike your assumption,
bahais believe in Bahaullah's words to be the ultimate measurement for the
truth and the future of humankind. Abdulbaha, as important as he is in the
faith, was only the authorized interpreter of the words of Bahaullah.
additionally, even as important as the W&T is, your conclusion is as if
one
don't see the staircase inside the house, thus deny the house and the land
its been erected on.

Unfortunately, if the W&T is a forgery then Shoghi should not have been
Guardian and all his stuff has to go down the plughole, which, I would have
thought, leaves you in a bit of bother ... seeing as how you have pinned the
whole edifice unto his sayings.

furthermore, you claim to defend the right of the covenant breakers and
others such as Fred, sattar,... etc, while you call
their belief to have been built on charlatans and crooks. If you come
about denying
Bahaullah and the rest thereof, then your approach appears most hypocrite.
You defend that which you deny.

I defend the right to differ and to hold and prfess one's own views. I also
defend the right to criticise those views.

you seem very much disoriented. on one hand you come to support of people
like Fred, Steve, ... and on the other hand you call their belief "BF is
nothing but a base sect with pretensions to grandeur and, most assuredly,
lacking in the type of guidance that I would expect from a divine
source".
You indeed greatly overestimate yourself, I am not sure how you can
impress yourself so much.

I'm sure I impress myself every bit as much as you impress yourself, though,
admittedly, with much greater justification.

humm, but surely Bahaullah has forbidden his followers to walk over
others.

Apart from Covenant Breakers!

do they know that you make a mockery of their belief?

I'm sure they can read.

your behavior seems
very much embedded in sheer hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? The fact that I can talk to anybody or everybody including
those with whom I vehemently disagree? The fact that I take no direction or
order from anybody limiting my right to discourse with anybody or everybody?
The fact that I regard nobody as being "spiritually diseased" ?

And BTW I am serious about needing to get outa here.





it may not have anything to do with love though.

It hasn't.





.

Loading