> On Mar 3, 9:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > I think you're talking out of your arse, Nima. There's quite a long > > essay on the history of Common Law at Wikipedia,
> It is pretty obvious that the one regularly speaking out of their arse > is one who cites wikipedia/wackopedia as an authority on the > intricacies of the Common Law system inter-jurisdictionally and how > the nature of stare decisis actually works. Unlike palu hamhead those > of us who actually went to Law school, such as Jeffrey and I, know > these things whereas lying cultist ignoramuses like hamhead do not. > BTW this is taught in 1st year law school. It should be noted that > this is also the same person who can't properly count the number of > days from January 30 to March 1st.
I was going on your own estimare, Nima. You cited "9 days left" on 18th Feb.
And I don't believe you ever went to law school. You general ignorance of the law, which Dermod for one is always exposing, makes that assertion difficult to believe.
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I was going on your own estimare, Nima. You cited "9 days left" on > 18th Feb.
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> And I don't believe you ever went to law school.
And why should I care what you believe, again?
>You general >ignorance of the law, which Dermod
My general ignorance? Try Dead Weed's rampant, mind-boggling ignorance, demonstrated time and time again. Contrary to that welfare cheat I actually have a degree. What does Dead Weed have? F-all! And which swamp is that fenian rodent and has-been buffoon hiding out these days? We pray he has finally met the real grimreaper as he deserves and gone straight to hell where he rightfully belongs, insha'Llah!
On 4 Mar, 01:32, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:51 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > I was going on your own estimare, Nima. You cited "9 days left" on > > 18th Feb.
> And I cited 28 days on January 30. Duh!
> W
It's incredibly pathetic how you insist on continuing to blame others for the mistakes you made, about an arbitrary deadline that you decided on, that no-one else particularly cared about or paid any attention to.
> On Mar 4, 2:51 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > And I don't believe you ever went to law school.
> And why should I care what you believe, again?
> >You general > >ignorance of the law, which Dermod
> My general ignorance? Try Dead Weed's rampant, mind-boggling > ignorance, demonstrated time and time again. Contrary to that welfare > cheat I actually have a degree.
Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that sourcewatch article:
"I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without clear or compelling evidence.
Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex- adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can be faked.
> On 4 Mar, 03:42, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2:51 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > > that he is probably working for them."
> > -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > > And I don't believe you ever went to law school.
> > And why should I care what you believe, again?
> > >You general > > >ignorance of the law, which Dermod
> > My general ignorance? Try Dead Weed's rampant, mind-boggling > > ignorance, demonstrated time and time again. Contrary to that welfare > > cheat I actually have a degree.
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that > sourcewatch article:
Well, this pretty decisively proves that the IT committee is actively watching the Kohli SourceWatch page. Don't worry, Diane will come around, as did Bob. There is quite a substantial amount of material proving Kohli's tactics. They'll go back in just as the Kohli article stayed. Count on that!
Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that sourcewatch article:
"I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without clear or compelling evidence.
Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex- adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can be faked.
That article is gummed up. The first background paragraph says that Pat Kohli worked in a next generation flight data recorder and has in MS in CIS from Florida Tech, and references an article in the Tester. http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/110905/38174-1.... Though I know Pat and I know that is accurate, the Tester article does not say that Pat Kohli has any degrees nor does it say he worked on a next generation flight data recorder. So, he got his redundant references crosswired.
W/ Azal is jealous that his SourceWatch.org article went away. Did you see how he bullied Bob Burton?
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that > sourcewatch article:
WA: Well, this pretty decisively proves that the IT committee is actively watching the Kohli SourceWatch page. Don't worry, Diane will come around, as did Bob. There is quite a substantial amount of material proving Kohli's tactics. They'll go back in just as the Kohli article stayed. Count on that!
AB: What about the UAV expertise and the war crimes he committed because I took vacation?
Discussion subject changed to "The SourceWatched Pat Kohli/All_Bad and the IT committee attempt to lobby and intimidate SourceWatch director and editor" by Ruhaniya
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith[1] who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Articles and Resources 2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles 2.2 References 2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231 as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting, maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2 program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2 operational flight program to an environment using commercially available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon system development from its very inception. Our government/industry teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role as a battle management command and control platform and a central network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt. Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late 1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion regarding the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources [edit]Related SourceWatch Articles [edit]References ↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1], dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009. ↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2], Accessed February 17, 2009 ↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E laboratory", November 10, 2005. ↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group, talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009. ↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed February 17, 2009. [edit]External Articles
> On Mar 5, 2:03 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that > > sourcewatch article:
> Well, this pretty decisively proves that the IT committee is actively > watching the Kohli SourceWatch page. Don't worry, Diane will come > around, as did Bob. There is quite a substantial amount of material > proving Kohli's tactics. They'll go back in just as the Kohli article > stayed. Count on that!
> W
What? The fact that I clicked on a link provided in YOUR post, that you repost multiple times every day?
The fact that I then reported the most recent action by a person who's the Chair of the committee running the Sourcewatch website, or some such?
Well, well - I predict that within the week Nima WILL be claiming that Diane thingy either is a Baha'i, or is in receipt of the Baha'i shilling, and that's the only possibly reason why she might reject libellous unproven statements appearing in an article on her website!
Paul
btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like, which actually tempted me back onto the Wikipedia website to look around at the mess you'd been attempting to make after months of absensce? You can't make a noise about something, and then expect people not to hear about it at the same time! It's your continual spamming that brought Sourcewatch to my attention - I'd not heard of it before you publicised that link to you and May's Pat Kholi article.
On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of your intended consequences were, asshole? You want to show me anything else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that article down. And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else. There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your handlers with. And be careful who and what you start threatening again. Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up and the Tories won't be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long- time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
Discussion subject changed to "Spamming a SourceWatch article daily is fighting the good fight, But daring to post other comments from that article soon draws playground cries of "no fair!"" by pahamm...@onetel.net.uk
Subject: Re: Spamming a SourceWatch article daily is fighting the good fight, But daring to post other comments from that article soon draws playground cries of "no fair!"
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that > sourcewatch article:
> "I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a > serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without > clear or compelling evidence.
> Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they > also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see > Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article > and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their > work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex- > adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived > email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can > be faked.
> That article is gummed up. The first background paragraph says that Pat > Kohli worked in a next generation flight data recorder and has in MS in CIS > from Florida Tech, and references an article in the Tester.http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/110905/38174-1.... > Though I know Pat and I know that is accurate, the Tester article does not > say that Pat Kohli has any degrees nor does it say he worked on a next > generation flight data recorder. So, he got his redundant references > crosswired.
> W/ Azal is jealous that his SourceWatch.org article went away. Did you see > how he bullied Bob Burton?
> - All Bad
I notice that Nima's response to my reposting Diane's comments here yesterday was to go back to the talk page and accuse Diane and SourceWatch of having been "got at" by Baha'is. (The fact that Bob didn't continue to fight him after he directed a similar accusation at him was taken by Nima to be confirmation of the truth of his accusation - he really does project all the time!)
This is part of Diane's response today to that accuasion coming from Wahid. Our girl Maybeam has taken a much more canny approach of asking for guidance on the proper use of such material as usenet archives in SourceWatch articles. I think she's about to find out what a liability Nima is when he's arguing on your side (when he doesn't shoot himself in the foot, he'll be shooting you in the foot)
She's quite even tempered, imo. (Diane, I mean)
"As far as your questions, Wahid -- if something is a fact, then please provide the evidence. What Bob and I are both trying to do is to keep up the quality of SourceWatch articles by applying the same standards to this article that we do to any article. No one has lobbied us. If you respond to our requests by strengthening the article, then we'll be satisfied. But saying you "know" something to be true is not sufficient, for any reasonable standard. (And, on a minor point, I only see one source that looks like a news article, though it's actually a Navy press release.)
Simply put, you can't assert what you can't document is true. I understand that something may be true even if a news article hasn't been written about it, but in order to keep SourceWatch a reliable resource, we need to insist upon referencing standards. If that's not possible to do in this case, then SourceWatch isn't the forum you should be using to make those assertions. Thanks for understanding.
Ruhaniya wrote: > On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of > > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against > > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
> And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of > your intended consequences were, asshole?
What were they, exactly? I didn't notice anything in particular, except that you screamed and screamed until you went purple here, and made about 20 sockpoppets, some of them named after me (they DO say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) at Wikipedia, which got thrown off in pretty short order - and also resulted in some suspicion being thrown on some user ids whose editing history looked suspiciously like yours who WEREN'T actually you.
Are those the consequences you were talking about? Because I rather think that supports my side of the argument. If you make a lot of noise about something, not all the attention you attract will be welcome to you.
> You want to show me anything > else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your > British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that > article down.
I don't have any British Labour Party connections. Why do you think I do?
I voted for them in the last election. But of course, if you've got any detailed info that proves otherwise...
> And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's dealing with?
> There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your > handlers with.
Thank you for being SO explicit about your motivation. I'm sure that will come in handy.
> And be careful who and what you start threatening > again.
I haven't ever threatened you, to my knowledge. YOu've threatened me many times, however.
> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up
And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime Minister of Great Britain. I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
>and the Tories won't > be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole > bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long- > time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
Calm down and stop clucking, Holy Chicken - you'll lay an egg or something!
Discussion subject changed to ""First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them." -- Eric Stetson, September 2003" by Ruhaniya
Subject: "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them." -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
On Mar 6, 12:19 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
On Mar 6, 12:19 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I don't have any British Labour Party connections.
Bullshit!
> IBut of course, if you've got > any detailed info that proves otherwise...
Yes, we do, and some of which has already been put up.
> So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and > Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
There's a lot more other concerns, and you know that, hamhead. But if it's all the same to you, nailing your hackery and that of Kohli's motivates me -- absolutely!
> Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR > usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's > dealing with?
Do so, and give me precisely the argument I am making to her (which she currently denies) that you are lobbying her, while giving me the opportunity to send a comprehensive list of your contributions and intimidations and libel and bullying against people dissenting against you and your leash-holders, not to mention to comprehensive list of plausible denials by you of being a Bahai or connected to the organization.
> And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime > Minister of Great Britain.
Fuck the current Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck the former Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck future Prime Ministers of Great Britian! Fuck all past Prime Ministers of Great Britian! And, most especially, fuck Great Britian and especially fuck the British! And prognosticating a clear election defeat for that fatass Gordon Brown is not a threat, idiot!
> I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
Good for them, I hope they did, which is why I wrote it.
> And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
In your regard my threat is a promise. When the time arrives, you are going down, and let the whole world know that. Don't believe anything else!
> On Mar 6, 12:19 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > I don't have any British Labour Party connections.
> Bullshit!
> > IBut of course, if you've got > > any detailed info that proves otherwise...
> Yes, we do, and some of which has already been put up.
What? You mean, that quote from an old post at Wikipedia where I say "I voted Labour in the last election"?
I just said it again now - how do you make out that this is evidence confirming your Labour Party-Baha'i IT Committee - Paul Hammond cross- over conspiracy?
> > And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime > > Minister of Great Britain.
> Fuck the current Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck the former > Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck future Prime Ministers of Great > Britian! Fuck all past Prime Ministers of Great Britian! And, most > especially, fuck Great Britian and especially fuck the British! And > prognosticating a clear election defeat for that fatass Gordon Brown > is not a threat, idiot!
Where did you mention an Election defeat?
"> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up "
Those are your words - and in some other words of yours, this looks a lot like a Gordon Brown murder fantasy to me!
> > I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
> Good for them, I hope they did, which is why I wrote it.
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
WA: And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of your intended consequences were, asshole? You want to show me anything else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that article down. And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else. There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your handlers with. And be careful who and what you start threatening again. Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up and the Tories won't be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long- time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
AB: We've all seen you getting medieval. You look like the invisible man, not showing up for the duel you challenged to have. Clu cluck cluck, chickenhead!
Discussion subject changed to "Spamming a SourceWatch article daily is fighting the good fight, But daring to post other comments from that article soon draws playground cries of "no fair!"" by All Bad
From: "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 05:30:27 -0500
Local: Fri, Mar 6 2009 5:30 am
Subject: Re: Spamming a SourceWatch article daily is fighting the good fight, But daring to post other comments from that article soon draws playground cries of "no fair!"
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that > sourcewatch article:
> "I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a > serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without > clear or compelling evidence.
> Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they > also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see > Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article > and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their > work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex- > adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived > email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can > be faked.
> That article is gummed up. The first background paragraph says that Pat > Kohli worked in a next generation flight data recorder and has in MS in > CIS > from Florida Tech, and references an article in the > Tester.http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/110905/38174-1.... > Though I know Pat and I know that is accurate, the Tester article does not > say that Pat Kohli has any degrees nor does it say he worked on a next > generation flight data recorder. So, he got his redundant references > crosswired.
> W/ Azal is jealous that his SourceWatch.org article went away. Did you see > how he bullied Bob Burton?
> - All Bad
I notice that Nima's response to my reposting Diane's comments here yesterday was to go back to the talk page and accuse Diane and SourceWatch of having been "got at" by Baha'is. (The fact that Bob didn't continue to fight him after he directed a similar accusation at him was taken by Nima to be confirmation of the truth of his accusation - he really does project all the time!)
This is part of Diane's response today to that accuasion coming from Wahid. Our girl Maybeam has taken a much more canny approach of asking for guidance on the proper use of such material as usenet archives in SourceWatch articles. I think she's about to find out what a liability Nima is when he's arguing on your side (when he doesn't shoot himself in the foot, he'll be shooting you in the foot)
She's quite even tempered, imo. (Diane, I mean)
"As far as your questions, Wahid -- if something is a fact, then please provide the evidence. What Bob and I are both trying to do is to keep up the quality of SourceWatch articles by applying the same standards to this article that we do to any article. No one has lobbied us. If you respond to our requests by strengthening the article, then we'll be satisfied. But saying you "know" something to be true is not sufficient, for any reasonable standard. (And, on a minor point, I only see one source that looks like a news article, though it's actually a Navy press release.)
Simply put, you can't assert what you can't document is true. I understand that something may be true even if a news article hasn't been written about it, but in order to keep SourceWatch a reliable resource, we need to insist upon referencing standards. If that's not possible to do in this case, then SourceWatch isn't the forum you should be using to make those assertions. Thanks for understanding.
Hey - that's cool! The SW webpage apparently has some gizmo that automatically adds an attribution if you cut and paste something from there!
AB: It is a funny performance. W was doing so well at playing the non-paranoid until he tossed in the libeling thing, and then it starts to unravel with accusations of footsy and Diane calls him on his 'well known fact' codewords for prejudicial assertion. You can paint the spots off the leopard, but then the paint starts to wear off as the leopard does its leopard stuff, and the spots show through, again.
Ruhaniya wrote: > On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO, > that he is probably working for them."
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> > btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of > > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against > > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
> And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of > your intended consequences were, asshole?
PH: What were they, exactly? I didn't notice anything in particular, except that you screamed and screamed until you went purple here, and made about 20 sockpoppets, some of them named after me (they DO say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) at Wikipedia, which got thrown off in pretty short order - and also resulted in some suspicion being thrown on some user ids whose editing history looked suspiciously like yours who WEREN'T actually you.
PH: Are those the consequences you were talking about? Because I rather think that supports my side of the argument. If you make a lot of noise about something, not all the attention you attract will be welcome to you.
> You want to show me anything > else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your > British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that > article down.
PH: I don't have any British Labour Party connections. Why do you think I do?
PH: I voted for them in the last election. But of course, if you've got any detailed info that proves otherwise...
> And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
PH: So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
PH: Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's dealing with?
> There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your > handlers with.
PH: Thank you for being SO explicit about your motivation. I'm sure that will come in handy.
AB: That is why Nima and his Bitch-Que, the long line of his irrational grievances, ought to be on Disinfopedia, so that no matter where he spouts his paranoid rants, there is a resource that decodes them.
> And be careful who and what you start threatening > again.
PH: I haven't ever threatened you, to my knowledge. YOu've threatened me many times, however.
> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up
PH: And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime Minister of Great Britain. I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
>and the Tories won't > be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole > bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long- > time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
PH: And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
PH: Calm down and stop clucking, Holy Chicken - you'll lay an egg or something!
AB: "Stop clucking", your trying to trick him into killing himself!!!!!! If the chcken stopped clucking, it could cease to exist in the Weasel-verse. As W's fantasies, we could all die. AHHHAAAA.
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith [1] who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Articles and Resources 2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles 2.2 References 2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231 as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting, maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2 program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2 operational flight program to an environment using commercially available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon system development from its very inception. Our government/industry teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role as a battle management command and control platform and a central network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt. Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late 1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion regarding the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources [edit]Related SourceWatch Articles [edit]References ↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1], dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009. ↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2], Accessed February 17, 2009 ↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E laboratory", November 10, 2005. ↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group, talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009. ↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed February 17, 2009. [edit]External Articles
