Topic of the Month - June 2007

[Roopkirani]

In a recent "Shout", one of our dear members asks, "Why does ZB suck now?"

Let’s ponder this for a moment, shall we? Let’s begin with a tiny bit of research.

– verb (used with object)
1. to draw into the mouth by producing a partial vacuum by action of the lips and tongue: to suck lemonade through a straw.
2. to draw (water, moisture, air, etc.) by or as if by suction: Plants suck moisture from the earth. The pump sucked water from the basement.

– verb (used without object)
1. Slang. to behave in a fawning manner (usually fol. by around).
2. Slang. to be repellent or disgusting: Poverty sucks.

Very insightful. Of course, we all know that the above comment refers to the latter two definitions. Does Zpeakerbox really suck? That’s very subjective. Members are entitled to their opinion. Although, it is unfortunate when such opinions frequently cannot be supported by valid arguments and support.

Zpeakerbox has only been in existence for three years. Since then, it is over 700 members strong. Admittedly, only two handfuls of those 700 are active participants. Why is this the case? If we knew the answer, many more members would be active participants and maybe Zpeakerbox wouldn’t appear to “suck”. There really is no one reason. People are or were attracted to this site for various reasons. The content, the people, the discussions, the appearance, the pictures, whatever… Then, something comes up and Zpeakerbox has to compete for members’ attention. I respect this. If there isn’t anything on Zpeakerbox at the moment to grab one’s attention and that person chooses to move on to other things, that’s fine. Not everyone has the ability or desire to spend hours on the Internet reading threads and sharing an opinion. I respect this.

Really though, Zpeakerbox is what its members want to make of it. The administrators here would like to see Zpeakerbox flourish and thrive as it once did one year ago. But this task is not just up to the administration. You, the members play an important role. Don’t want Zpeakerbox to “suck” any more? Then voice your opinion. Offer something of value. Make something of your experience.

A lot of hard work, thought and dedication has been poured into this site over the years. Do I think it sucks? Not at all. Do I think that it’s hit a tiny bump? Yes, but one that can and will be overcome.

Is it fair to say that Zpeakerbox sucks? I think it deserves much more respect than that. Do you?

[shahvir]

zpeakerbox is great.
unfortunately a ten tonne truck called facebook rolled through and took over.
whether the facebook group stays as active as it is right now and continues to flourish, who knows.

[Jamsheer]

Agreed, Facebook is the new flavour of the month - or rather, of the past few months.

[Jimmy]

That was a very heart felt speech Sharon :)

I agree sharon, ZB doesnt suck, its the same ZB that was up and running over a year ago. I dont think the quality of ZB went down, more so than I think its members expectations and needs went up. This reminds me of when i was on friendster ALL the time but since fb took over the social network scene, im only go on there when i recieve a message or something. Also, one thing that ZB has to compete with is an active member base. FB has a LOT of Z's on there and for people its like a one stop shop, post some pics, write on a wall, check out the zoro threads. Ok maybe that last part is just me :-P ... But seriously I think that if ZB wants to compete with FB the users have to populate ZB with content that only ZB has. Lets say for example only posting pictures of the congress on ZB and not FB.. but its got to be something the members do themselves. Something that makes ZB exclusive. Its got to be a party that everyone wants to join.

One thing i like about ZB, which i prefer actually is that all my other non-z friends cant see what im writing about Z topics. Not like i really care but i like the separation. If anything thats one thing that ZB has to offer, its made for us by us. As sharon says ZB is what we make of it. The magnitude of ZB suckage is inversely proportional to the level of activity.

So ill end by doing something on here which i could do on FB, but ill leave it exclusively for ZB....

<loads his spoon up with a spicy meatball>

<flings at Benaisha>

DIRECT HIT! Right in the noggen! ooo haha!

[Roopkirani]

So ill end by doing something on here which i could do on FB, but ill leave it exclusively for ZB....

<loads his spoon up with a spicy meatball>

<flings at Benaisha>

DIRECT HIT! Right in the noggen! ooo haha!

hahaha - That was great. I hope Benu comes up with something good.

I agree, it's that one-stop-shop factor that has people flocking to Facebook. I like that about Facebook but I still make it a point to come here because it is unique in its own way. If there was a Zpeakerbox Facebook group, it wouldn't be the same at all. In fact, I don't think I would even pay much attention to it. It would just be another group that sits pretty on my list.

You're right about the pictures too...

[Roopkirani]

For the record, Facebook has only managed to do what Zpeakerbox is trying to avoid: dividing the community. There are now SO many different Zoroastrian groups on Facebook. One for the Parsis, one for the Iranis one for the liberal Zoroastrians, the conservative Zoroastrians...

Zpeakerbox, on the other hand, is one place, for everyone. Hopefully people will soon come to appreciate that about Zpeakerbox...

[Parizad]

what a good point. it's interesting you bring that up, Sharon.

[Cyrus]

ZB doesnt suck....its just become old in terms of social websites.... it was doing quite well in the beginning but soon issues came up, which acc to me werent dealt wit properly...(just my opinion and i will not elaborate on these issues)....

moreover other social websites started coming out which took members attention away from ZB... its quite normal..... first hi5 was the big thing...when orkut came along....hi5 was history n orkut became huge.... then myspace....n now finally facebook....

if u look at these websites...u will notice that each website has the same base, wit new features and fewer problems than the previous one...... i am pretty sure sooner or later another such website will show up and facebook will become history........ its similar to (internet) jungle rule...survival of the fittest...

[Cyrus]

For the record, Facebook has only managed to do what Zpeakerbox is trying to avoid: dividing the community. There are now SO many different Zoroastrian groups on Facebook. One for the Parsis, one for the Iranis one for the liberal Zoroastrians, the conservative Zoroastrians...

Zpeakerbox, on the other hand, is one place, for everyone. Hopefully people will soon come to appreciate that about Zpeakerbox...



i dont think facebook is dividing the community...... people like belonging to certain groups and not others... there r iranians who dont like being called parsi and vice versa.... not everyone thinks alike and its hard to say that zpeakerbox is trying to avoid dividing the community...... there are some zoro groups on facebook with 3 times the members than zpeakerbox....

plus people create groups to find people wit similar qualities, beliefs etc... one way of seeing it is that facebook two opposite issues from clashing and causing problems.... on facebook if someone doesnt agree wit what the group stands for...dont join it.... join someother group or make your own... ZB may have issues wit this and has had them whose outcomes wasnt pretty at times.........

[Roopkirani]

i dont think facebook is dividing the community...... people like belonging to certain groups and not others...

its hard to say that zpeakerbox is trying to avoid dividing the community...... there are some zoro groups on facebook with 3 times the members than zpeakerbox...

ZB may have issues wit this and has had them whose outcomes wasnt pretty at times.........

Maybe dividing wasn't the right word to use. Facebook certainly isn't bringing Zoroastrians closer together (necessarily). I remember when that one large Zoroastrians group was at half the members it has now. There were many conflicting opinions and all that resulted was another group to support one side of those views. Zpeakerbox has various conflicting views that are shared but it hasn't necessarily gone and created individual forums for the Parsis vs Iranis vs sudreh and kusti wearers vs non sudreh and kusti wearers.

Why is it hard to say that Zpeakerbox is not trying to divide the community? It isn't! Zoro groups on Facebook with 3 times the members? You must mean active members. I have yet to see a Zoro Facebook group with 2100 members.

Any way, I digress. I value your opinion Cyrus. It's nice to see your name pop up. Zpeakerbox has had issues in the past, I acknowledge this. Since then, I think both ZB and its members have grown... :)

[derek]

It sucks cause you arent allowed to view your points. If the Admin (or his trained puppies) think they aren't in line with their (whatever) thinking, then you r posts get deleted or you get banned.

Such childish approach cannot run a Forum such as this.

[Roopkirani]

It sucks cause you arent allowed to view your points. If the Admin (or his trained puppies) think they aren't in line with their (whatever) thinking, then you r posts get deleted or you get banned.

Such childish approach cannot run a Forum such as this.

You are probably referring to your recent thread about Narius. It is no longer available to view simply because,

"Our only rule is to be considerate of other people and groups so this means there will be zero tolerance of personal and group discrimination such as racial, gender, and sexual orientation remarks and slanders."

This is written on the front page of Zpeakerbox as well as our "Member Guidelines." What you had written falls distinctly into the above categories, and hence, will not be tolerated.

Frankly, we do not care about what you think of Narius, whether you feel sorry for him or anything related to your infatuation of him.

Any and all derogatory comments towards other members of Zpeakerbox will be deleted without warning. If you choose to participate here, Derek, you will simply have to accept that. No other members seem to have a problem with it.

Freedom of thought and speech is welcome and acceptable. Personal bashing and derogatory statements, however, are not.

[Roopkirani]

Sadly, our Zoroastrian community has recently divided into the Reformist and Traditional Zoroastrians on Facebook. Is there no more common ground between these two "groups". I hate the division. Yes, I identify myself within one of those "groups" but it seems so formal (for lack of a better word).

[manubanu]

I'll be honest. I think it's a good thing. Not because we're separate but because I know there seems to be a lot more peace on the regular integrated Zoroastrian group.

[2p34|{3rb0x]

i donot use face book
i havent heard of differenciation between zoros on the basis of reformist or traditional. if i had to pick one side im not sure which one id pick..
am i the only one ?

[manubanu]

Well usually if you're on the fence, it means you are "liberal" lol

Liberal meaning you wish to see change in the religion.
Conservatives want to go by the book.

[sanaya83]

I'd have to agree, what happens when you are not sure which side to pick?? I frankly feel a radical or fanatical attitude in any religion is detrimental to that religion...So it's either stick to super conservative attitudes or be totally 'free' and accept almost anyone..Is there no real middle ground?
No 2p34|{3rb0x you're not the only one...

[2p34|{3rb0x]

I'd have to agree, what happens when you are not sure which side to pick?? I frankly feel a radical or fanatical attitude in any religion is detrimental to that religion...So it's either stick to super conservative attitudes or be totally 'free' and accept almost anyone..Is there no real middle ground?
No 2p34|{3rb0x you're not the only one...
yeah i woudnt want to be clasified as either.. im open to all zoroastrians.
does any1 really care about it when picking friends?

[faredoon]

I've noticed that this slotting phenomenon gets more pronounced with each and every post one writes, at least that's what I've noticed with myself. As in, with each post there maybe a kind of pressure to pick a side, so even though I may not want to be slotted, just because I do not agree with a (so called) "traditionalist" automatically slots me in the "reformist" side. A "traditionalist" will be quick to snap back and say "MAKE UP YOUR MIND! It's crystal clear, black and white, either you're in or out!", and that's when the pressure t opick a side arises.

[Parizad]

more than one or or the other, I see four groups in our community...

1. traditionalists
2. conservatives
3. liberalists
4. reformists

the two most widely spoken about are:

the traditionalists at the far right wing of the spectrum, holding on to traditions and old (yet not necessarily always outdated values) and holding firm that our religion is what it is today because we have practiced the traditions and not questioned the religion at every minuscule detail.

and

the liberalist who sit on the middle left wing of the spectrum, holding to the notion that with changing times, so should we keep an open mind as to whether our traditions and practices make sense in the present day. liberalist maintain a mentality that religion should not be a solid institution that can not be changed with good reason. this good reason is often disputed by the traditionalists.

the other two groups are less spoken about because they are clumped with one of the two former groups mentioned.

conservatives sit in the middle right of the spectrum. they hold on to the values similar to traditionalists but are not so rude and rigid when change comes about. conservatives generally like things the way they are and don't encourage too much change in the religion, if any; however, they realize that at some point they have to let nature run its course and they realize that change is something they can't really fight. if it's going to happen, it will. conservatives definitely do their part for the religion, just as the other groups do too... conservatives will fight for what they believe is wrong and injust but when the fighting becomes too much or when these conservatives get too old, they succumb to one of two facts: 1. just because this is my position, doesn't mean that everyone has to share my views; 2. if this is the direction of the community, then there's nothing I can do about it. but when the conservative makes one these decisions in their life, the traditionalist will continue fighting until their very last day in this world.

reformists sit at the far left wing of the spectrum. they hold basic principles of the values liberalists hold as well but they usually take action about the matter. they want to see change, and they will do something about it. most times traditionalists will confuse reformists for liberalists... yes, they are liberalists but not all liberalists are reformists. reformists believe that our religion should be open to one and all; that we should not act as some secret society that is exclusive because we think we're better than the rest. reformists believe that traditionalists think this way. reformists generally believe that our religion has a world of knowledge to share and we have every right to share that with the rest of the world if we so choose to do so. traditionalists in particular don't like reformists because they believe that reformists disregard all practices, values, and traditions that make Zoroastrianism what it is. reformists generally look at religion different than traditionalists do and therefore can always justify their actions to themselves just as traditionalists justify their actions to themselves as well.

traditionalists, unfortunately, have a mentality that if you're not one of us, you're one of them. that's not really the case at all. it's not a black and white issue. views on religion lie on a continuum. you don't even need to be a Zoroastrian to fall into one of these 4 groups. and mind you, the four groups also have their own continuum. think of it as one big line, rather than 2 or 4 opposing groups.

where do you fall?

[Jimmy]

Very interesting take on the whole thing Pari. Very well thought out and put together. In my head Conservatives/Traditionalists and Liblerals/Reformists are grouped together. The way I see it there are essentailly two main groups, call them what you will. One wants change, the other does not.

I definitely agree that there are continuums in both groups. On your scale I think I would be a 1.5.

Sharon, Id say the only thing the two groups do have in common are the 3Gs and the word 'Zoroastrian'. Yes its unfortunate but thats the way it is. The way I see it the two factions can peacefully coexist separately or forcibliy exist together each driveing the other up the wall. The latter seems to be the case today. I honestly thing more progress can be made if we unlock our horns, agree to disagree. We could perhaps mingle, participate in functions, be friends, etc. But when it comes to religion I dont know how we can peacefully coexist when each sides views are the polar opposite of the other. Even by parizads specturum Conservatives and Liberals would not get along and they are the more middle of the road people.

Also about the middle of the road people. i think over time they will eventually pick a side, or at the very least identify with one side more than the other. I find that the TRULY middle of the road people are very very confused or uninformed when it comes to religion. I know that is not everyone in the middle but im just saying most of them.

[2p34|{3rb0x]

conservative i guess .. but then im just picking one cuz theres no other or not decided yet option

[Parizad]

Very interesting take on the whole thing Pari. Very well thought out and put together. In my head Conservatives/Traditionalists and Liblerals/Reformists are grouped together. The way I see it there are essentailly two main groups, call them what you will. One wants change, the other does not.


that's not true. one group wants change at any cost. one group doesn't want change at any cost. if anything, it's the conservatives and the liberals that are the most alike than any.

meet more people and you'll see that there's more than 2 groups out there. maybe I'm wrong... maybe there's more than 4 groups out there...

[manubanu]

that's not true. one group wants change at any cost. one group doesn't want change at any cost. if anything, it's the conservatives and the liberals that are the most alike than any. meet more people and you'll see that there's more than 2 groups out there. maybe I'm wrong... maybe there's more than 4 groups out there...

I think you're right and wrong on that count.
Yes conservatives want NO CHANGE.
and yes reformists want CHANGE.

But people tend to stereotype ALL the reformists into one box of people who want the exact same goals/interests/potential changes.

Just because they are in one particular group doesn't mean all want to banish nirang from the navjote ceremony or have open conversion for everyone who wishes to be a Zoroastrian.

People who are in Reformist group just want change. The amount and extent of that change varies from person to person.

[zoroangel]

Parizad - your spectrum applies to political parties and not too much to religious groups I think.

To separate Zoroastrianism into groups you have to use the differences in traditions, practices, etc. For example, I do not fit on the spectrum anywhere according to your description. Cause I am a traditionalist but not the kind you described (or maybe missed out).

The way I see it is that there will be a separation in the religion eventually, which is happening already with traditional organizations and associations who are breaking away from FEZANA, WZO, BPP, etc. and forming their own group that they belong to.

This will solve many issues and debates within the community. Seems like the way to go. The only way we can have peace on all sides. This way we all practice religion the way we want to and not have to say my way is right and your way is wrong.

[Parizad]

I probably missed out a group then Afreed. What group do you think you fall in to?

my spectrum definitely applies to religous subgroups because of the politics that are dividing our community. it's nothing more than politics all the way.

quite frankly, I don't see how dividing the community will solve any problem. the arguments and the fighting are because both sides want different things and they want the other side to compromise their beliefs. not that this is helping any, but either will dividing up the community. division will just mute the community until someone decides to speak up again.

[Jimmy]

I think you are missing the 'I dont give a shit' group.. I think they have by far the most number of people in it. More so than the liberals, conservatives, reformists, and traditionals combined.


"I don't see how dividing the community will solve any problem. the arguments and the fighting are because both sides want different things and they want the other side to compromise their beliefs."

You answerd your own question. Its because people want different things AND they want the other to comprimise their beliefs, thats why a split is needed because comprimise will never be reached on a topic as sensitive as religion.

This isnt union negotiations, or a hostage crisis. Conservatives are never going to say "ok ill grant you that you can mix marry if you say converts are not allowed" .. or vice versa... that is NEVER going to happen. Plus even if it does there will be a group of people who will STILL fight for conversion. Even a comprimise wont bring peace. Its best to let everyone do what they want and not jam each others thoughts down the others throat.

[Parizad]

a true split will never happen because at the heart of every debate and argument, it's not about what each group wants for itself, it's what they want the other group to believe. there's a difference. if traditionalists didn't give a rats ass about what the liberals or reformists or conservatives thought, or if the liberals didn't care either and so on and so on, then the community would have split a long time ago.

a split is not going to solve anything.

[2p34|{3rb0x]

seeing how zoros are getting divided into groups and then we even have conflict on what the groups actually mean etc .. just wondering .. what significant difference does it make .. do you pick friends looking at what their 'group" is ? would u stop haning out with someone if they change their "group"
i would pick a group ...but i dont see why ?

[Jimmy]

For me I dont discriminate socially based upon the group someone falls into. Thats their beliefs and im not going treat them differently because of that.

People associate into groups because they usually feel that the other groups thoughts are so vastly different that they have nothing in common. I kind of feel that way. From what I veiw is right, juxtopposed with someone who thinks is Ok to convert, mix marry and not wear your sudreh and kusti as long as you follow the 3g's you are zoroastrian, then I believe the only thing I have in common with that person is the 3g's and the word Zoroastrian. So how can we be expected to mutually co-worship in peace? More importantly why should we be foreced to do so when in essence we are really practiceing two very different religions and schools of thought? I just dont get it.

I think we have got to come to grips that the current way of doing things where we try and jam everyone under one roof doesnt work. It sparks animosity and contempt whereas religion is supposed to be something that does exactly the opposite. I really feel that the current system does not work and its only dragging us down further.

[Jimmy]

a true split will never happen because at the heart of every debate and argument, it's not about what each group wants for itself, it's what they want the other group to believe. there's a difference. if traditionalists didn't give a rats ass about what the liberals or reformists or conservatives thought, or if the liberals didn't care either and so on and so on, then the community would have split a long time ago.

a split is not going to solve anything.


Pari i definately see where you are coming from. While I cant speak for other people I personally really dont care what liberals/reformists think. I dont want to change them, or make them believe what I do. I just want the right to practice what I believe in peace, without having to defend WHY the way I practice is not "ancient" "racist" "facist" "outdated" "sexist".... etc etc.

The reason why people debate for the most part isnt because they want to change the other side its because they dont want the other side to seem like the dominant power, or the only choice to confused or uninformed individuals. And this goes for the right or the left. Or at least thats why I debate. I KNOW that im not going to change anyones thoughts, nor do i really want to. I just want people to know there is another side to things, and they can choose for themselves whats right and whats not. Though i sometimes get the feeling that the Left debates because they have a need to have their thoughts validated by the right, and thats never going to happen.