The "...Lion that is of the tribe of Judah"
rossca...@shaw.ca
Scriptural prophecy concerning the "...Lion that is of the tribe of
Judah". We have in our possession the bloodline genealogy which traces
the genetic line from Baha'u'llah back to Judah, who was prophetically
called a "lion", as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. That
prophecy pointed forward to the One Who is the "...Lion that is of the
tribe of Judah." Who, alone, is able to open the sealed scroll of
Revelation chapter 5.
We, as Baha'is, know and believe that the prophetic "scepter",
referred to in the ancient prophecy about Judah, is speaking about the
Kingship of Baha'u'llah as the King of God's Kingdom. We know that He
is our King, and we know that the genetic line from Judah to Him was
preserved by Almighty God. We also know that the "chosen ministers" of
His Covenant are the Earthy kings of His Kingdom, in submission to Him
Who is the King of those kings.
The "hereditary principle" was preserved by Almighty God for thousands
of years, related tom that "scepter" of which the prophecy concerning
Judah speaks.
The astonishing, incredible reality today is that many, even most
Baha'is on Earth today, at the this time of the actual establishment of
God's Kingdom on Earth, in fulfillment of Holy Prophecy, believe and
are taught, in effect, that beyond the first "chosen minister", (Shogi
Effendi) appointed and named by 'Abdu'l-Baha', Almighty God was no
longer able to preserve the "hereditary principle" related to the
prophetic "scepter" of authority/rulership to be held in the hands of
the kings of God's Kingdom on Earth, the general theme of all Holy
prophecy.
Most Baha'is today are taught by their leadership that the "hereditary
principle" no longer exists, that it vanished, and has been replaced by
election of a body of democratically elected individuals.
The fact is that the "...Lion of the tribe of Judah" is already seated
upon His throne of rulership, and no further genetic/bloodline
descendants are necessary. The One of Whom the Holy prophecy speaks
has arrived. He is the Lord of this Age, The Glory of the Most
Glorious One.
The "hereditary principle" continues in the Baha'i Faith, however,
except that His "chosen ministers" on Earth are now spiritual
descendants, whether or not they may be genetically related to Him.
How very strange that those claiming to have faith in Him do not
believe that Almighty god could have preserved the
genetic/bloodline/physical line of descendants for rulership over God's
Kingdom on Earth is such had been God's Will. Here they are all
believing that Shoghi Effendi's death took God by surprise, catching
Him off-guard, thus destroying and eliminating the "hereditary
principle", leaving them with no alternative except to take matters
into their own hands and to elect men democratically to for a
replacement body for the one who might have fulfilled the "hereditary
principle."
Astonishing. Who could have imagined such a scenario.
The website of the living Guardian of the Baha'i Faith:
wahid...@gmail.com
of the people of Nur of Mazandaran goes back to the post-Sassanian
Dihqans, who if any geneology was to be made, there geneology would go
back to the Zoroastrian high priests. Second, the mother of Azal - not
your fake avatar - has a geneology which goes back to the Imams.
Nowhere in this geneology is there any lost tribe of Israel whose
supposed Lion is your bogus avatar. Me, on the other hand, I have a
family geneology which not only goes back to the Imams, but it also
goes back to the Zoroastrian high priests of Istakhr - from which Azar
Kayvan came out of - and, then, from my mother's side of the family I
have a geneology that goes back to the 14th century Kabbalist Joseph of
Hamadan, who is among the compilers of the Sefer ha-Zohar (The Book of
Splendor). Joseph himself was a kohenim whose geneology went back to
tribe of David and Solomon, the true Kings of Israel, which in effect
makes my claim as both the True King of Israel as well as the meshiach
far stronger than your bogus pretender avatar, the manifestation of
Hubal and the Golden Calf.
I am the Lion of Judah, the Return of David, the True King of Israel,
the True Messiah!
Shma Yisrael Y-H-V-H Eloheynu Y-H-V-H Achad!
W
All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> Take your fake, bogus, contrived geneology and stick it. The geneology
> of the people of Nur of Mazandaran goes back to the post-Sassanian
> Dihqans, who if any geneology was to be made, there geneology would go
> back to the Zoroastrian high priests. Second, the mother of Azal - not
> your fake avatar - has a geneology which goes back to the Imams.
>
> Nowhere in this geneology is there any lost tribe of Israel whose
> supposed Lion is your bogus avatar. Me, on the other hand, I have a
> family geneology which not only goes back to the Imams, but it also
> goes back to the Zoroastrian high priests of Istakhr - from which Azar
> Kayvan came out of - and, then, from my mother's side of the family I
> have a geneology that goes back to the 14th century Kabbalist Joseph of
> Hamadan, who is among the compilers of the Sefer ha-Zohar (The Book of
Uh, no. Your ancstors were all Shia and Shaykhis and that is not
something anyone would lie about, right?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
> Splendor). Joseph himself was a kohenim whose geneology went back to
> tribe of David and Solomon, the true Kings of Israel, which in effect
Wrong. The Kahenim trace their ancestry to the tribe of Levi, not
Judah. The Kohenim are the priests, not the princes; the children of
Aaron, not David.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/9849/tribe.html
> makes my claim as both the True King of Israel as well as the meshiach
> far stronger than your bogus pretender avatar, the manifestation of
> Hubal and the Golden Calf.
>
Nah. Your claim, yet again, proves my claim, that you are a liar.
> I am the Lion of Judah, the Return of David, the True King of Israel,
> the True Messiah!
>
You lie; you are a liar.
> Shma Yisrael Y-H-V-H Eloheynu Y-H-V-H Achad!
>
l - i - a - r
- All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com
>something anyone would lie about, right?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
Ya, my ancestors from my fathers side were the Imams. My ancestors from
my mothers side were the Kings and Prophets of Israel.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>something anyone would lie about, right?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
Ya, my ancestors from my fathers side were the Imams. My ancestors from
my mothers side were the Kings and Prophets of Israel.
>You lie; you are a liar.
You hear the Truth and you hear lies instead, because the only thing
that you ever say are lies, thus, since the universe is a Mirror, you
see lies and hear lies only, because you are the LIE embodied.
>> Shma Yisrael Y-H-V-H Eloheynu Y-H-V-H Achad!
>l - i - a - r
See, I did say you are the LIE embodied. That is the daily Hebrew
prayer, "Hear, O Israel, your Lord is G-D, Your Lord is One"! which you
have just called a lie. You have, once again, condemned yourself before
the Almighty with your own words, O embodiment of the Lie! By that
response itself you have again demonstrated that you are a "kafir" (an
infidel) and a "mushrik" (one who has associated partners with HaShem)
and a "munafiq" (a hypocrite). Your abode is hell, kkholi, and soon
will you go there...
W
W
All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
You lie. Your ancestors were _all_ Shi'a and Shaykhis. You explicitly
denied any Jewish ancestry.
>You'd never guess that Nima is a self-hating Jewish Baha'i zadeh would
>you?
Because I'm not. My ancestors were all Shi'a and Shaykhis.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
I'm surprised you would forget your own family of origin, and what you
kow about the Kohenim is wrong, also consistent with you not being of
Jewish extraction. Usually this information is passed along from
generation to generation: Aaron and the Levites, not David and Judeans.
- All Bad
All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Your ancstors were all Shia and Shaykhis and that is not
>>something anyone would lie about, right?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
>
>
> Ya, my ancestors from my fathers side were the Imams. My ancestors from
> my mothers side were the Kings and Prophets of Israel.
>
.>You'd never guess that Nima is a self-hating Jewish Baha'i zadeh would
.>you?
.
.Because I'm not. My ancestors were all Shi'a and Shaykhis.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
>
>>You lie; you are a liar.
>
>
> You hear the Truth and you hear lies instead, because the only thing
> that you ever say are lies, thus, since the universe is a Mirror, you
> see lies and hear lies only, because you are the LIE embodied.
>
>
>>>Shma Yisrael Y-H-V-H Eloheynu Y-H-V-H Achad!
>
>
>>l - i - a - r
>
>
>
> See, I did say you are the LIE embodied. That is the daily Hebrew
> prayer, "Hear, O Israel, your Lord is G-D, Your Lord is One"! which you
> have just called a lie.
You lie. The Shema has "ADONAI", not "Y-H-V-H". Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai
Elohaynu Adonai Echad.
http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/shema.html
http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Religion/TheShema.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/liturgical_texts/Overview_Jewish_Prayer_Book/shema_3240.htm
> You have, once again, condemned yourself before
> the Almighty with your own words, O embodiment of the Lie!
You lie. I was pointing out that you don't speak to Israel; you have
nothing of consequence to say.
> By that
> response itself you have again demonstrated that you are a "kafir" (an
> infidel) and a "mushrik" (one who has associated partners with HaShem)
> and a "munafiq" (a hypocrite). Your abode is hell, kkholi, and soon
> will you go there...
You are a liar.
- All Bad
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You hear the Truth and you hear lies instead, because the only thing
> that you ever say are lies, thus, since the universe is a Mirror, you
> see lies and hear lies only, because you are the LIE embodied.
>
Well done, Nima.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Now, what are you going to do to improve the situation?
Paul
wahid...@gmail.com
manifestation of the lie. Death be upon the Lie and its manifestation,
kkkholi!
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Subject: Pat K, A joke
From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
Subject: Pat K, A joke...
Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
Pont by bloody point-
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie...
You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
post...and
months later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not
already been debunked.
Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bullshit here-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli. You do not deny
what all recognised at the time...you simply claim that because I
chased her
for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it. Your
irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I cry
"stop thief! explain yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at
Beliefnet, not nice"....then when I pursue her you claim the pursuit
negates the crime.
For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him. For exactly
the
same reason I persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their
vitriol and accusations, none in the Baha'i apologist gallery would
object to their abhorrent behaviour....and....in the end... having had
all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my face....it
was the hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment
in which they dared not
do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
wristed
such as yourself.
.> you'll be writing me from the killfile.
So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
core
points made, you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts,
you recycle old arguments long answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta,
I won't be responding to you" then you pop up with the same tired
shite. I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point
by laborious point every time you put it up (see below) you go right
ahead and crawl under your killfile rock with Susan. It is the surest
confirmation of the complete defeat of your intelectual inadequacy and
ethical deficiency..
> The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'.
I've
> pointed that out to you before.
The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
"nasty"
flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
ignore/dismiss as "All good clean fun so far"
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded73...
Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.0309140328.3d2ad143%2
540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5
> Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
discourteous,
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K, recognising and
articulating the repetition of the enemy of faith allegations on
Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical revision spin
doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..
>your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
> another league from an intemperate remark.
An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan. I did
not begin a personalised flame war with Susan. I did not precede these
events with post after post of blatant misrepresentation. I did not
refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position nor
resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor follow
with killfile. I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to
ascertain the origin and rationale behind her allegation, flame and
personalised attack and received naught but further allegation/abuse.
I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
resolution through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans
rules' well before ever stooping to do so.
You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
I am
in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked
EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).
"libelings of " Susan? When someone attempts to steal from me I shout
"stop thief" and pursue them when they flee. You stand in the gutter
moaning- "Thief is a libellous charge" and "You pursue the alleged too
vigorously".
"Do we do this with others"?PK
Time after time after time.
"It is not good"PK It sucks
> Here is a quote from September 2003,
Great...you quote your own analysis of what transpired as further
screen
to any examination of actually transpired. What's more you quote from
the *One* post of yours on this issue that I did not respond to....The
reason I neglected to respond to the post you cite is because I could
not decide between-"Beneath contempt Pat" and "Fuck off Pat". It was,
and remains, the saddest lamest contribution you have made on any
issue and the fact that you would choose to link to it now (as
evidence of anything other than total blind bias) simply stuns me.
>when I was looking at the origins of your flamings of Susan Maneck,
Your own language reveals and betrays you...You went looking for the
origins of my flaming Susan and turned a blind eye to every occasion
she employed unprovoked ad hom.
> "Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message,
Snip
I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your analysis of
what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument, fail to respond
to the post and subsequently return to repeat the nonsense.
> and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,
Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.
> Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
> guys",
Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn. Go back and count
the number of times I was obliged to say- "I didn't say that Susan"
and factor that into your biased misrepresentation.
> you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
> various allegations which you would make up.
The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan over?
> I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
> allegations which I made up for them,
No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
never
happened because I pursued her over it.
>AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just
attribute
it right
> back to their intentions.
Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
it,
she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
provided
further confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to
respond to)
> > > I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you
decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
> > No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you
said
> > so at the time.
> There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
>What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
> worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.
An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that Susans
original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way "changed"
by my subsequent pursuit of her. Your argument is inane, insane and
morally bankrupt.
> > You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
> > completely
> > when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to
substantiate)
> > I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
> Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put
words in
> my mouth.
Your words- "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee,
and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K From your big mouth.
Reality from post record checked and confirmed.
> Speak for yourself. If you think I said
> something, go ahead and look it up!
Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
make it cease to exist.
> As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
> inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
> Bnet.
We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
reality
check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
recognised
reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we all
saw.
> However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behaviour in
>the matter:
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net,
So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!? Neither
of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged jackass insult
was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated requests (to Susan)
it remained (as did yours) just one of a string of ad homs devoid of
any justification/explanation.
So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.
> That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
> hypocrite:
Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.
> But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha ha.
Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
Here is part of the replay-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
> I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,
The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
cowards killfile? A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.
>you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
> fabrications are pointed out to you.
Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
rebuttals
that you must resort to killfile to avoid. I have knocked down your
every point and every equivocation at every turn....you have not even
responded to the points raised in my last post and your sounding
retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond to this one.
> You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the
killfile.
So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
of your equivocating arse once more.
> > You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
> > revisions
> > of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
> Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan
> of making allegations against you, and she did not make those
allegations.
Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
Priests
Pat?
Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat? I made or
inferred no direct allegation did I Pat? What I said was just a little
bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?
No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
you saw
Susan make.
> When you acknowledge that she did not make the
>allegation,
I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.
> you weasel back and renew your
> allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of
accusing
>you of
??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot? Can't
complete a coherent sentence?
I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
experimental ethical conduct-
> "Because it is the only moral option.
> Because it is the only ethical option.
> Because it is the only fair option.
> Because it is the only just option.
> Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
> Because it is the only peace option.
> Because it is the only healing option.
> Because it is the only truthful option
> Because it is the only principled option.
> Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
> Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
> Because it is the only Baha'i option.
> Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
> slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
> to my faith.
> Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals
relationship
> to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred
ground.
> Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
> you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
>member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
> Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302....
48dd619a%40posting.google.com
Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
resolution....here comes the spin doctor.
> Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
'anti-faith.'
SEE-
> "I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
meaning was
clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
subsequently refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further
innuendo.
Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
Boys
Pat? Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?
> and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it
in
>her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
you backflipping bastard.
> Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
> inference,
Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record
> In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you
were
> accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
> assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.
Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
details"
Snip
> "Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
> to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
> anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
> explain/substantiate/justify."
> Rod, 4 September 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
> You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation,
and it
> had already been found wanting.
What I see is you quoting what I have said all along. What are you
"wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words "Enemy of the
Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.
> This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
> that she says about you.
I say the police have your toilet block under survelience. I could say
that there is no clear allegation of association with a paedophile
faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bullshit.
Wouldn't it Pat?
>You've been repeating lies, and when you are
> confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case,
one
> which was already exposed as simply your own inference.
And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your eyes)
in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-
>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is what has changed" PK
Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
supposed "lie".
> > If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
> > convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post
record...
> > why bother?
> Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
> examples!
The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
have said all along. (Why don't you put up your links to posts
purporting to show Baha'is defending each other from abusive innuendo
and allegations that actually demonstrated the opposite....they served
as good examples of exactly
what you are doing now).
> When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
> anti-faith, you rationalise,
Lie. I never made such acknowledgment. I recognised (as did you) that
she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the anti
faith faction. All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of
language.
> rather than apologise.
I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
that you are earlier.
>You pursue your jihad,
Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
previously
mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
wanker.
>saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
> faith (though I did not show that link here),
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?
> and when you are confronted
> and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
> and rationalise your libels,
By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
of what transpired?
> > > A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
> > Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
> > to what others say with links to their posts.
> Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my
views.
By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
doing
otherwise.
>Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
> on words you put in her mouth.
Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
and
innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
obnoxious,
one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction" And Susan has been such
a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly clarify any
misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all read...clear
and unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
Pat?...ever ready to engage in vitriol free resolution from the
outset.....one only has to review the
lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
'Why
you should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.
Arsehole. .
> She never called you "anti-faith";
She never used those words.
> you made that up;
I never said she used those words.
>and she never called you "enemy of the faith",
She never used those words.
> you've made that up, too.
I never said she used those words either.
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!
> Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
>up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?
I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.
> > This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
> > invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your
assertions...each
> > time you fire a snide shot and flee.
> Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.
And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
I have said all along.
> Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
> allegations were solely your inferences.
That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
recognised
at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.
> Nothing changes, though.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
the
issue.
> > It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute
an
> > argument of any merit.
> The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called
> you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
> anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended
to do
>... so they should substantiate your allegation.
Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-
"This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK
You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
only
expose you further as a lying pissant.
> You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
Pissant is staple diet of jackass.
> > > When you label yourself
> > > an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote
the
> > >other party.
> > Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed
the
> > parallel
> > to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
> > asking-
> > "Is this what we do to others".
> No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,
A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
what
it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy. What "Susan had
done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to obscure it.
>but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another
matter.
What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
serious
false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
IT *CHANGES* NOTHING! And that's the backflipping point.
> You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the
Faith,
not
>Susan.
So it was her spelling that originally upset you? Go ahead....make my
day...put forward an alternate explanation for your discomfort with
the mysterious thing "Susan done".
> It stems from your own mind, though you have
> the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.
I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
that
"Susan apologise". And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
alleged imaginings. You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU
have said let alone what I have said.
> > When subsequently asked to explain
> > your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation
you
> > advised that
> > it was my response to what she said that changed things.
> I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
> and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
> year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put
words in
> my mouth.
God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
clear
objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
assessment of my "jackass" response to her allegation.
Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
assumptions/innuendo/allegations
of anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
apologists. Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in
"exactly the kind of crap".
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net, and
> then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
> was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got
shoved in
his face
> at B-Net, a dialectic."
> - me, 21 January 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
> "You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
> - Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
> (above)
> > Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
> You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be
something
> lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
> of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
> someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?
> > you called her
> > out for
> I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK The "bad manners" of
falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith faction, Arsewipe.
> > it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding
her
> > erases
> > the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
> > impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
> I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I was
"less of a jackass" two years prior. Now you say everything changes
because I pursued Susan too long for what she did wrong.
> Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.
Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
jackass"?
Your tribal bias bullshit is repugnant. You will stand by Susans shit.
You will stand by Joplins shit. You will tell me neither stink...and
that I should change my sox.
> You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
> when you are confronted.
When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
your previously stated position I will consider it.
> > Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the
faith?
> I told you that in September. Last year
You backflipped in September last year and I said so then
> I told you that you were reading her mind.
I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
her post, and yours.
> Even you said in September that she didn't
> lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being
> anti-faith,
That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
the
faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
grounds?
> an accusation you'd already tried out
> against her in February,
I know of no (two) separate/independent allegations.
> where you announced that your accusation was
> based on _her_intention_.
No. I said her "intention" was clear and not dependent on the
use of explicit 'terms' such as EofF.
> This means you refused to
> substantiate where she had said what you said she said.
A false conclusion drawn from a false premise and a false account.
> > Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
> Grow up!
You really think you can piss any higher?
> > You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
> > You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i apologists clearly don't give
> > a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly
makes
> > in regard another's relation to their faith.
> There is a lot that goes on here,
And you have your finger on the pulse of all theological/historical
trivia and a blind eye to all serious community issues.
> but, if you follow me around,
I follow you nowhere blind man.
>and insist,
Insist what?
>and, after I've looked into it,
Looked into what?
> and told you what I saw,
In relation to what? Joplins allegation or Susans? In either case I
never "followed" you nor "insisted" on anything.
> and you still want to lie about my POV,
How is quoting you a lie?
>eh, sometimes you get challenged.
Sometimes you just make incomprehensible noise Koli....as above.
> > Any lie, any slander, any
> > viscous crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is
perceived
> > to
> > be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person
enemy.
> Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
> person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey dokey?
Pat...That's about as sophisticated as the primary school- "Yea! I
know what 'you' are!...but what am I" .
I have already proved the Baha'i apologist tribal alliance
preparedness
to let any attack on a non person Baha'i go unchallenged....and I did
so
with the support of the thread links you provided.
> > It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
> > allegations
> > that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
> > provide tacit
> > support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
> > Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
> Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
> fantasies, where things get 'tacit.
Like Susan you have mastered the art of employing language to convey
no information. I put before you the reality of your preparedness to
cosset the likes of Joplin and you have nothing of substance to
contribute.
> In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being
a
> cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
> out your hypocritical lies,
"Now you're associating him with a cross dresser, an alcoholic
cannibal, and
a hypocrite, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
> please quote from this message.
When I'm finished rubbing your nose in your prior posts Kiddyfiddler.
> I find your inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
> decontextualized.
Perhaps you need to adjust your spin cycle on your post modernist
white washing machine.
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
If you don't like it don't write it.
All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lying is your existential embodiment, kkkholi. You are the
> manifestation of the lie. Death be upon the Lie and its manifestation,
> kkkholi!
>
Posting a fiber-filled, rabbit on repost, does not prove your point.
The fact remains, you lie. You even lie about your family of origin.
You've lied about the kohenim being the family of David, you've even
interpolated the Shema, and had the chutzpah to tell me that I was lying
about the Shema.
- All Bad
>
> Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
> Subject: Pat K, A joke
>
>
> From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
> Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
> Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
> Subject: Pat K, A joke...
>
>
> Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
> Pont by bloody point-
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie...
>
That link does not go anywhere.
Try this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/4b836c8c0076ba62?hl=en&
It goes to a reply to that message, posted 23 months ago, for that other
George, George W.
Here is that reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
relipl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bucpjv$fv8m...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT_THE_C...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 2:09 am:
>
>
>>>Telling more twisted untruths again. Since when has "your pointing
>>>out" in the past, and answering Rod's recent post the same thing?
>>>
>>
>>Read through the google archives if you'd like to see how many times
>>I've responded to Rod over the past year.
>
>
> I dont have to read through the google archives, you have not answered
> this post below. Instead you run away and kilfiled Rod.
>
I hadn't meant to say that I've answered this specific post. Had you
thought about the implications of everyone answering every post?
If you would read the message from me that Rod replied to, you might get
some sense of the value of the lengthy message in question.
> Reliplur9
>
> From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
> Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
> Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
> Subject: Pat K, A joke...
>
> Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
> Pont by bloody point-
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
> selm=8ccded73.0309140328.3d2ad143%40posting.google.com&rnum=45
>
For example, I could not find the message which the above link would
show. I can't tell if that is the message which he accuses me of
failing to respond to, or, if would be the default message, the message
which I was replying to.
> You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
> post...and
> months
> later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not already
> been
> debunked.
So, let's look at that prior message from Rod which I had replied to.
XXXXXXXXXXXX Rod's message dated 5 January 2004 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_C...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:<3FF8DD9E...@ameritel.net>...
> Rod wrote:
>
> > Dermod Ryder <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:bt7vbt$49709$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Marty Reynard" <mreyn...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:yaKJb.934721$6C4.551391@pd7tw1no...
> > > > What can I say Rod...a simultaneously brilliant and caustic
summary....
> > >
> > > He's renowned for that and for annoying certain Assoc Professors
of Bahai
> > > Orthodoxy though not Orthodox Bahai-ey.
> >
> > According to Pat I invoked her wrath by employing the colloquial
invective-
> > 'furphy'.
>
> Some other Pat?
Nope. You.
You suggested that the origin of the bun fight between Susan and I
was my employing- "furphy", "red herring" and "device of distraction"
as descriptors of her arguement. According to you she responded by
telling me to F off in the nicest way.
Same Pat. Same crap.
> I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you said
so
at the time. You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
completely
when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to substantiate)
I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
revisions
of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current oppinion of
convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post record...
why bother?
> A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
Allways have and have allways stood prepared to back my assertions as
to
what others say with links to thier posts.
This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your assertions...each
time you fire a snide shot and flee.
It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute an
arguement of any merit.
> When you label yourself
> an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote the
other
> party.
Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed the
parallel
to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
asking-
"Is this what we do to others". When subsequently asked to explain
your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation you
advised that
it was my response to what she said that changed things.
Susan clearly catagorized me as an enemy of the faith, you called her
out for
it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding her
erases
the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
Now you seek to assert that I labeled myself an enemy of the faith?
Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i appologists clearly don't give
a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly makes
in regard anothers relation to thier faith. Any lie, any slander, any
viscious crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is percieved
to
be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person enemy.
It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
allegations
that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
provide tacit
support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
> Some other Pat?
No. You.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX End of Rod's message Dtd 5 Jan 2004 XXXXXXXXXXX
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl257891463d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0401050646.76722eb6%40posting.google.com
Note how I'd replied to Rod's statement, in the mesage above
> > According to Pat I invoked her wrath by employing the colloquial
> > invective- 'furphy'.
My response was to call his attention to Susan's "you guys" remark.
Since that time, Rod has been accusing her of accusing him of being a
member of an anti faith faction, something which Susan not only did not
say, but, varously Rod has conceded she didn't say, and then seems to
deny retracting his claims. That is why she killfiled him, not for
using a bit of Australian slang for rumour.
Then Rod accuses me of a backflip from statements I'd made last year.
"You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune completely when
(having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to substantiate) I
embraced her no rules/anything goes policy."
Let's consider my response to his message of 5 January
XXXXXXXXXX Pat's message of 5 Jan 2004 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rod wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_C...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:<3FF8DD9E...@ameritel.net>...
> > Rod wrote:
> >
> > > Dermod Ryder <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:bt7vbt$49709$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Marty Reynard" <mreyn...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:yaKJb.934721$6C4.551391@pd7tw1no...
> > > > > What can I say Rod...a simultaneously brilliant and caustic
summary....
> > > >
> > > > He's renowned for that and for annoying certain Assoc
Professors of Bahai
> > > > Orthodoxy though not Orthodox Bahai-ey.
> > >
> > > According to Pat I invoked her wrath by employing the colloquial
invective-
> > > 'furphy'.
> >
> > Some other Pat?
>
> Nope. You.
> You suggested that the origin of the bun fight between Susan and I
> was my employing- "furphy", "red herring" and "device of distraction"
> as descriptors of her arguement.
The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'. I've
pointed that out to you before. Though "you guys" may
have been inappropriate, even discourteous, your subsequent unrelenting
snipings and libelings of her are in another league
from an intemperate remark.
Here is a quote from September 2003, when I was looking at the origins
of your flamings of Susan Maneck, which I found to
begin around 20 January 2003.
"Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message, and
excused her mistake with a categorization on your logic, something which
you had been doing to her earlier in the discussion."
- me, in September 2003
http://groups.google.com./groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3F5D2A8B.F81C658A%40ameritel.net&rnum=1
Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
guys", you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
various allegations which you would make up. This followed afterward.
For instance, in February, you
> According to you she responded by
> telling me to F off in the nicest way.
> Same Pat. Same crap.
>
I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
allegations which I made up for them, AND, when
confronted about making up the allegations myself, just attribute it
right back to their intentions.
>
> > I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
>
> No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you said
> so
> at the time.
There was a variety of behavior being exhibited on B-net. What you've
done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
worst of the behavior which you were subjected to.
> You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
> completely
> when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to substantiate)
> I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
>
Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put words
in my mouth. Speak for yourself. If you think I said
something, go ahead and look it up!
As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
Bnet. However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behavior in
the matter:
"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
B-Net, and
then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got shoved
in his face
at B-Net, a dialectic."
That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
hypocrite: all your bellyaching about Beliefnet, and you do
your impression of D95 right here, and its coming up to a full year now.
But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha
ha. I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction, you
just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
fabrications are pointed out to you. You are a waste of time to read,
and you'll be writing me from the killfile.
>
> You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
> revisions
> of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
>
Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan of making allegations against you, and she did not
make those allegations. When you acknowledge that she did not make the
allegation, you weasel back and renew your
allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of accusing
you of
"Because it is the only moral option.
Because it is the only ethical option.
Because it is the only fair option.
Because it is the only just option.
Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
Because it is the only peace option.
Because it is the only healing option.
Because it is the only truthful option
Because it is the only principled option.
Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
Because it is the only Baha'i option.
Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
to my faith.
Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals relationship
to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred ground.
Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a member
of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
"I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it in
her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could
see it as well!
"You didn't have to and "no thanks" the prospect makes grown men
tremble. Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was
prompted to comment upon it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302142121.7521204f%40posting.google.com
Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
inference, rather than something which Susan actually
accused you of, you use it in the fall back position when you falsely
accuse Susan of alleging that you are an enemy of the
faith!
In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you were
accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details. This was
because you had been sniping at her since January.
"Tell me Pat...was it just my 'impression' that I was designated an
'Enemy of the Faith' and a 'violator of the Covenant' by the BIGS
denizens of Bnet and TRB? "
Rod, August 31, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0308312050.2a944922%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dpat%2520rod%2520resign%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Dtalk.religion.bahai%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2002%26as_maxd%3D5%26as_maxm%3D10%26as_maxy%3D2003%26lr%3D%26hl%3Den
"Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
explain/substantiate/justify."
Rod, 4 September 2003
You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation, and
it had already been found wanting. This is not at all
what Susan says about you; this is what you say that she says about you.
You've been repeating lies, and when you are
confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case,
one which was already exposed as simply your own
inference.
>
> If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current oppinion of
> convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post record...
> why bother?
>
Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
examples! When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
anti-faith, you rationalize, rather than apologize. You pursue your
jihad, saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
faith (though I did not show that link here), and when you are
confronted and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
and rationalize your libels, rather than apologizing.
>
> > A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
>
> Allways have and have allways stood prepared to back my assertions as
> to
> what others say with links to thier posts.
>
Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my
views. Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
on words you put in her mouth. She never called you "anti-faith"; you
made that up; and she never called you "enemy of the
faith", you've made that up, too. Do you derive some perverse
satisfaction in making up lies to exaggerate how you've been
maligned?
>
> This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
> invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your assertions...each
> time you fire a snide shot and flee.
Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations. Today, I've even
posted where you've acknowledged that your
allegations were solely your inferences. Nothing changes, though.
>
> It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute an
> arguement of any merit.
>
The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended to
do ... so they should substantiate your allegation.
You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
>
> > When you label yourself
> > an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote the
other
> > party.
>
> Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed the
> parallel
> to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
> asking-
> "Is this what we do to others".
No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done, but your campaigning
for hypocrite of the millenium, is another matter. You
are the Baha'i on TRB who has labled you as an Enemy of the Faith, not
Susan. It stems from your own mind, though you have
the gall to demand that Susan apologize for your imaginings.
> When subsequently asked to explain
> your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation you
> advised that
> it was my response to what she said that changed things.
>
I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year, and
I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
year. Allow me to emphasize this for your benefit, lest you put words
in my mouth.
"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
B-Net, and
then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got shoved
in his face
at B-Net, a dialectic."
- me, 21 January 2003
"You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
- Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
(above)
>
> Susan clearly catagorized me as an enemy of the faith,
You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be something
lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
> you called her
> out for
I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
>
> it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding her
> erases
> the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
> impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
>
I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
Tragically, you don't calm down and let up. You really should
apologize for making up stuff and lying about it when you are confronted.
>
> Now you seek to assert that I labeled myself an enemy of the faith?
>
I told you that in September. Last year I told you that you were
reading her mind. Even you said in September that she didn't
lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being anti-faith, an accusation you'd already tried out
against her in February, where you announced that your accusation was
based on _her_intention_. This means you refused to
substantiate where she had said what you said she said.
>
> Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
>
Grow up!
>
> You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
> You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i appologists clearly don't give
> a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly makes
> in regard anothers relation to thier faith.
There is a lot that goes on here, but, if you follow me around, and
insist, and, after I've looked into it, and told you what
I saw, and you still want to lie about my POV, eh, sometimes you get
challenged.
> Any lie, any slander, any
> viscious crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is percieved
> to
> be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person enemy.
>
Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey
dokey?
>
> It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
> allegations
> that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
> provide tacit
> support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
> Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
>
Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
fantasies, where things get 'tacit.
In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being a
cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
out your hypocritical lies, please quote from this message. I find your
inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
decontextualized.
Plonk,
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
XXXXXXXXX End of Pat's message of 5 Jan 04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In my response, you see I pointed out that at the time, though I thought
Susan's use of "you guys" was inappropriate in addressing one guy, I
also found Rod's reaction to be axcessive and said he'd been a jackass.
Over the year, as Rod has pressed his over reaction into the sorts of
psychic crypto character assasination which he has complained of in
cyber-space, the volume of my comment has responded to the volume of his
over-reaction. I've said he's been a jackass about it all along, so
that has not changed, and at the time I found Susan's remark
inappropriate, and that opinion has not changed. It would be accurate
to say I don't express that opinion as much, but that is because Susan
has only addressed him as "you guys" the one time.
> Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bullshit here-
>
>
>>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
>>understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
>>understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>>
See, George. Rod is riled at Susan, not for what she said, but for what
he inferred.
It is sad, too. I don't mind being associated with Cal, and Dermod, and
Karen, or anyone else who posts here, pro-Baha'i, anti-Baha'i, whacked
out bahooey, I'm one of those people who post on TRB.
If someone like your former Baha'i self wants to accuse me of being
friends with Dermod Ryder who has been an active critic of the BF, I
don't see that as a problem, at all! Sadly, for Rod, any association,
named, specified or otherwise, w/ anybody, is not just a faux pas, but
the basis for a cyber jihad, with all sorts of wild accusations to be
made against the other party.
>>So what's changed Pat?
>>
>
> "You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
> That is
> what has changed" PK
>
> Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli.
Rod seems to be saying I am lying in saying that he has hounded Susan,
just as Dusty hounded him.
Let's see a few examples, and you decide if I'm lying, or, if Rod's
accusation is simply his lie, possibly made because he doesn't want to
accept the alternative.
"And this is the point at which spiritualy mature psychic insight is so
important Chris because only someone with Susans 'insights' can see
into anothers character and intent to determine when "one's acts [...]
are designed to hurt the faith". For such a determination no evidence
or explination is required to substantiate the allegation."
Rod, 15 Feb 2003, replying to Susan Maneck
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1125576278d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302151605.54b4c12b%40posting.google.com
"You must be very very lonely."
Rod, 19 Feb 2003, replying to Susan Maneck
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302190517.e607314%40posting.google.com
"Handed your card in Susan?"
Rod, 3 Feb 2003, replying to Susan Maneck
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0303030451.78d2ee7f%40posting.google.com
"This is an explicit directive from Susans boss.
Now she reserves her assumed psychic insights for her online hobby."
Rod, 4 Sep 2003, replying to Susan Maneck
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2563134595d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0309041425.d35dea%40posting.google.com
"Whatever Dermod works out it will transpire a lot faster than your
realisation that you are not the Guardian, not a Baha'i Institution, and
not entitled to assert that any member of the Baha'i community is
aligned with anti faith factions."
Rod, 6 Sep 2003, replying to Susan Maneck
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0309061917.35e3dd94%40posting.google.com
I don't care to discuss at this point the accuracy of Rod's statements,
or inaccuracy. I am saying that he'd established a pattern of injecting
derogatory remarks, aimed at Susan, into discussions she was having with
other people, and it looked like what D95 had done to Rod on B-Net. I
point this out to corroborate my earlier statement to Rod, that he'd
been hounding her as D95 has hounded him. It is not a lie, but
something which can be substantiated. Rod didn't ask for the
substantiated, and instead, he simply accused me of lying. Why didn't
he ask for substantiation? Was he afraid I was right?
> You do not deny what all recognised at the time...you simply claim
> that
> because I chased her
> for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it.
The problem Rod may be having, in understanding my remarks last year, is
in shades of grey. I didn't think it was appropriate to associate him
with anybody by addressing him as "you guys". It is not at all my
intention to justify the lies he's told about Susan and I resent him
using my name in trying to justify his lies. Rod accuses her of
publicly accusing him of being a member of an anti-faith group, and
demands she either retract or substantiate. She pointed out that she
never said such a thing. She can't retract something she never said.
Rod justifies his baseless accusation by claiming she had intended to
make such an accusation.
"Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
- Rod Wicks, addressing Susan Maneck, 13 February, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302132249.48dd619a%40posting.google.com
"I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind? In
fact it seems to me all your accusations of my making baseless
accussations against you are based on a very vaque reference to 'you
guys.'"
- Susan Maneck, addressing Rod Wicks, 14 February, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=20030214080525.23109.00000653%40mb-bd.aol.com
"You didn't have to and "no thanks" the prospect makes grown men
tremble. Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was
prompted to comment upon it. You sought to portray me as a member of a
faction believing in AO plots and openly opposing the faith. Your
equivocation compounds your unethical practice."
- Rod Wicks, addressing Susan Maneck, 14 February, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302142121.7521204f%40posting.google.com
See, Rod accuses her of "public allegation that a member of the Baha'i
Faith is a member of an anti faith faction", and when the cards are
flipped over, and Susan can't recall the statement that Rod is stuffing
into her mouth, Rod just assigns it to her as her intent to lable him as
a "member of an anti faith faction" which is a gross exaggeration.
> Your irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I
> cry
> "stop thief!
See George, my argument has been to call out the facts. He's made up
nonsense about Susan. She's corrected him, and he's dismissed the facts
and fallen back on infering some intention on her part: relying on his
own mind-reading.
> explain
> yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at Beliefnet, not
> nice"....then
> when I pursue her you
> claim the pursuit negates the crime.
See, Rod is either trying to whitewash his hypocrisy, or has disengaged
himself from discussing the facts. He ignores the fact that he accused
her of publicly accusing him of something she publicly said she did not
do, and he publicly said that the facts of her not having done it were
irrelevent, since he's decided that she intended it, and for good
measure decides I've even read her intent to label him as
> For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him.
I may have missed that, but Dusty did hound him, injecting himself in
conversations just to pick on Rod, much as Rod had later done to Susan.
It was sad. Dusty was one of these people who would not take advice;
you know the kind, George.
> For exactly
> the
> same reason I
> persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their vitriol and
> accusations, none in the
> Baha'i apologist gallery would object to their abhorrent
> behaviour....and....in the end...
> having had all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my
> face....it was the
> hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment in which
> they
> dared not
> do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
> wristed
> such as yourself.
>
Sad. Looks like George Bush trying to justify pre-emptive invasions.
> .> you'll be writing me from the killfile.
>
> So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
> core
> points made,
> you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts, you recycle
> old
> arguments long
> answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta, I won't be responding to you"
> then
> you pop up
> with the same tired shite.
Rod seems to have chamelon core points now. In the past, it had been
that if you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd better be
able to substantiate it, or retract your accusations. Now, what? Is it
all good if Rod does the hounding - he doesn't need to substantiate or
retract his accusations, he can just read their minds? Well, no, that
was the point, to get away from that 'witch hunt' nonsense.
> I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point by
> laborious
> point every time
> you put it up (see below) you go right ahead and crawl under your
> killfile
> rock with Susan.
> It is the surest confirmation of the complete defeat of your
> intelectual
> inadequacy and
> ethical deficiency..
>
Blah blah blah. George, did you see Rod trying to substantiate his
allegation that Susan publicly accused him of being "a member of an anti
faith faction"? I don't see him doing that. I've pointed out that he
made the accusation. I've ven pointed out where he said it was not
necessary for him to corroborate his accusations since Susan really
intended to do what he accused her of. Rod's response, is to tell me I
am defeated due to moral terptitude and mental defect. He does not need
no stinking evidence anymore.
>
>>The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'. I've
>>pointed that out to you before.
>
>
> The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
> "nasty"
> flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
> ignore/dismiss
> as "All good clean fun so far"
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded73.030914
>
0328.3d2ad143%40posting.google.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DEnemies%2Bof%2B
>
Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.0309140328.3d2ad143%2
> 540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5
>
> > Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
> discourteous,
>
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
> crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
> what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
> Pat K, recognising and articulating the repetition of the enemy of
> faith
> allegations on Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical
> revision spin doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..
>
See George, I never said that Susan had called him an enemy of the
faith. He's decided that, and then tells me I've changed my story. I
did chide Susan for addressing him as "you guys", and it went to his
head. I was talking to Susan, and Rod decided that I'd heard him being
called an Enemy of the Faith. I'd already told him to stop putting
words in my mouth. What Rod has done since Susan addressed him as "you
guys", has been far and away disproportionate to an open ended
association with an unspecified person or group. Susan didn't associate
Rod with you, or anyone else, she simply opened the possible
interpretations, and, association with you might be objectionable for
some. "Not good" is not the same as a string of lies and character
assasination 'drive bys'.
>
>>your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
>>another league from an intemperate remark.
>
>
> An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
Doesn't ask for the post record; doesn't want to be cluttered by facts.
Other facts were pointed out, like the Feb 03 accusations and denials.
> I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan.
Of course not. What I had pointed out, and what he sidesteps, is that
he accused her of publicly making such an accusation against him, and
when she denies that she's done so, he says he does not need to show
that she'd made the public accusation which he said. Instead he says
she intended it.
> I did not begin a personalised flame war with Susan.
When he accused her of _intending_ I think things tood a direction.
> I did not precede these events with post after post of blatant
> misrepresentation.
Of course he did.
> I did not refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position
> nor resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor
> follow
> with killfile.
He's made up intentions for Susan, and conclusions for me, and he's
shown no sign of slowing down.
> I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to ascertain the origin
> and rationale behind her allegation, flame and personalised attack and
> received naught but further allegation/abuse.
See, George. Sadly, there is the implicit denial of the facts. Rod
overlooks the fact that Susan never accused him of being a member of an
anti-faith faction, that that is a charge he made up for himself, and
demanded that Susan justify. Of course he should be flamed for making
up accusations and saying that someone else said them, but then he's
been doing the flaming.
He was not at all interested in acknowledging the fact that Susan had
not made some public accusation that he was a member of an anti-faith
faction, that the fact was that Susan had mistakenly addressed him as
"you guys", and all after that has been his over-reaction, or derived
from his over-reaction.
> I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
> resolution
> through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans rules' well
> before ever stooping to do so.
Responding in kind to "you guys", would be "you gals". That was not
Rod's response. Rod has made up false allegations that Susan accused
him of things she's nevr said. Rod has been undeterred by the facts,
faling back in his own mind-reading.
> You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
> what
> transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
> I am
> in the midst of attempting to defend against another
> basless/unprovoked
> EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).
>
I've ponted out facts for Rod, George. He wants to pretend otherwise.
He accuses me of evasion, and distortion of the reality which
transpired. My recollection is out of synch with his, I'll grant that,
but look up the messages for yourself. Rod accused Susan of accusing
him of being a member of an anti-faith faction, and when Rod was pressed
to substantiate or retract, he's projected her intention. All this jazz
about his efforts to reconcile was about his fabrication of a
significant grievance (more than 'you guys'), and pretending that Susan
had not pointed out that she never did what he said she did.
Where's the part about his false accusations?
>
> I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your
> analysis of what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument,
> fail to respond to the post and subsequently return to repeat the
> nonsense.
>
>
>>and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,
>
>
> Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.
>
See, George, now Rod shifts. For the moment, he ignores the baseless
allegation he made about 'a member of an anti-faith faction', and now
Susan has called him an enemy of the faith!
I'd already looked that one up, too, and Rod already acknowledged that
Susan did _not_ call him an enemy of the faith.
"Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
explain/substantiate/justify."
Rod, 4 September 2003
... and I had pointed that out in a message on 5 January
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl257891463d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3FFA2833.D808617A%40ameritel.net
Rod says she called him "A" and when the facts show otherwise, he says
she intended to. Rod says she called him "B", and when the facts don't
support that either, he says that she is too smart to do it directly.
Rod makes up these libels as he goes along, George. Does that remind
you of anyone and their dealings with Dr. Kelley?
>
>>Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
>>guys",
>
>
> Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn.
> Go back and count the number of times I was obliged
> to say- "I didn't say that Susan" and factor that into your
> biased misrepresentation.
>
I'm not going to bother. I've done a lot of 'looking up' on this series
of Rod's accusations about Susan, for almost the past year. It seems
that the more I look up, and point out, the more the accusations are
against me, and not Susan, and the more I have to look up.
>
>>you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
>>various allegations which you would make up.
>
>
> The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan
> over?
>
>
>>I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
>>allegations which I made up for them,
>
>
> No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
> never
> happened because I pursued her over it.
>
Rod is out of touch.
>
>>AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just
>
> attribute
> it right
>
>>back to their intentions.
>
>
> Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
> it,
> she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
> provided
> further
> confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to respond to)
>
Rod is close to the point, the problems is far more his inferences
rather than Susan's statements.
>
>>>>I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you decided
>
> that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
>
>>>No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you said
>>>so at the time.
>>
>>There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
>>What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
>>worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.
>
>
> An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
> nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that
> Susans original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way
> "changed" by my subsequent pursuit of her.
>
> Your argument is inane, insane and morally bankrupt.
>
Rod wants to dismiss any suggestion of his hypocrisy, as my moral
terptitude and mental defect.
>
>
>>>You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
>>>completely
>>>when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to substantiate)
>>>I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
>>>
>>
>>Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put words in
>>my mouth.
>
>
> Your words-
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
> crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
> what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
> From your big mouth.
> Reality from post record checked and confirmed.
>
>
>>Speak for yourself. If you think I said
>>something, go ahead and look it up!
>
>
> Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
> make it cease to exist.
>
Right, there is _nothing_ there about "Enemy of the faith", and Rod
decided in this same post that this remark was "Pat K, recognising and
articulating the repetition of the enemy of faith allegations on Bnet"
By looking it up, we can see that I did _not_ say that Susan was calling
Rod an enemy of the faith. That "enemy of the faith" accusation is
something which Rod has made up, just like the "member of an anti-faith
faction" allegation.
>
>>As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
>>inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
>>Bnet.
>
>
> We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
> reality
> check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
> recognised
> reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we
> all saw.
>
>
>>However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behaviour in
>>the matter:
>>"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
>>B-Net,
>
>
> So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!?
George, I am trying to point out to Rod that my opinion on his
over-reaction has not changed as he might be trying to suggest.
> Neither of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged
> jackass insult was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated
> requests (to Susan) it remained (as did yours) just one of a string
> of ad homs devoid of any justification/explanation.
>
> So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
> Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.
>
I point out stuff to Rod, and he makes up accusations. Here he's acused
me of changing my mind in an area that I have not. I show him evidence,
and it makes no sense to him. Do you really suppose I should keep
looking up these same links where he makes up accusations, acknowledges
they lack any factual basis, moves over to new fabrications, acknowleges
there is nothing to them, and then goes back and says he _never_
retracted his accusation? Then, he says it makes no sense? Of course
it makes no sense - I've pointed out his inconsistencies. Why should I
continue - he doesn't benefit from it.
>
>
>>That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
>>hypocrite:
>
>
> Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
> I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.
>
Why do I bother?
>
>>But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha ha.
>
>
> Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
> Here is part of the replay-
>
>>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
>>understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
>>understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>>
>>So what's changed Pat?
>>
>
Does it look familiar, George?
> "You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
> That is
> what has changed" PK
>
>
>>I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,
>
>
> The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
> cowards
> killfile?
> A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.
>
>
>>you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
>>fabrications are pointed out to you.
>
>
> Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
> rebuttals
> that you must resort to killfile to avoid.
> I have knocked down your every point and every equivocation at every
> turn....you have not even responded to the points raised in my last
> post
> and your sounding retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond
> to this one.
>
Amazing - right here in this message he's drug out that accusation that
Susan has called him an enemy of the faith, an accusation which he's
already denied that Susan actually made - did he say she was too
educated to make that accusation??? Why isn't he educated enough that
we'd expect him to confine himself to accusations he can support?
Above he says that he's rebutted and that is why I must retreat. The
facts are that he's made false accusations, typically of the pattern
"Susan Maneck has accused me of ____", and when he's been pressed to
substantiate his allegations, he's slithered away with some lame excuse
about his mind reading abilities and her intentions. These facts have
been pointed out to him, and he denies and repeats.
Why should I continue to dignify this tantrum with a serious response?
>
>
>>You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the
>
> killfile.
>
> So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
> of your equivocating arse once more.
>
Big talk, eh George?
>
>
>>>You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
>>>revisions
>>>of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
>>>
>>
>>Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan
>>of making allegations against you, and she did not make those
allegations.
>
>
> Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
> Priests
> Pat?
>
Rod has no interest whatsoever in seriously substantiating those
accusations against Susan. He can say that she's accused him of being
an enemy of the faith, and then say that she did not say it directly,
she's too smart, but she meant to say it. He can deny that he ever
acknowledged that she did not call him an enemy of the faith. Rod can
say that Susan has accused him of being a member of an anti-faith
faction. He'll bring no evidence of it, either. Instead, he'll say
that she _intended_ the accusation.
Susan has not made the allegations that Rod says she made. Toilet
blocks and child molesting priests do not change these facts. Rod has
alleged that Susan as accused him of things that she has not accused him of.
> Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat?
> I made or inferred no direct allegation did I Pat?
> What I said was just a little bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?
>
> No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
> you saw
> Susan
> make.
George, Susan addressed Rod as "you guys". Do you suppose this is
'proportionate'?
>
>>When you acknowledge that she did not make the
>>allegation,
>
>
> I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.
>
It is like pushing a string, George. Rod accuses,
"Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
Rod withdraws,
"Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was
prompted to comment upon it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302142121.7521204f%40posting.google.com
Rod accuses Susan several times that we can see in this message, saying
Susan has accused him of being an enemy of the faith,
"Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed the
parallel to the Bnut EofF allegations ..."
"You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while I
am in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore)."
"Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF."
The fact is, when pressed to substantiate these claims, Rod excuses
himself saying,
"Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the anti
faith faction, one of "them", and refused to explain/substantiate/justify."
Rod, 4 September 2003
>
>>you weasel back and renew your
>>allegation.
> In February you started a thread, accusing her of accusing
>>you of
>
>
> ??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot?
> Can't complete a coherent sentence?
>
See, George? I show Rod some examples of the futility of continued
discussion, he weasles back and forth, and low, he says I can't complete
a thought. Why should I continue to dialog with him?
> I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
> efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
> experimental ethical conduct-
>
George, I had not gotten this far into the message. Thanks for having
me read this surprise. Rod, you're welcome.
>
>>"Because it is the only moral option.
>>Because it is the only ethical option.
>>Because it is the only fair option.
>>Because it is the only just option.
>>Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
>>Because it is the only peace option.
>>Because it is the only healing option.
>>Because it is the only truthful option
>>Because it is the only principled option.
>>
>>Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
>>Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
>>
>>Because it is the only Baha'i option.
>>
>>Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
>>slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
>>to my faith.
>>Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals relationship
>>to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred ground.
>>
>>Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
>>you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
>>member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
>>Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
>>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302132249.
> 48dd619a%40posting.google.com
>
> Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
> resolution....here comes the spin doctor.
>
>
>>Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
>
>
> No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
> 'anti-faith.'
> SEE-
>
Rod does seem out of touch with his accusation. He said she made a
"public allegation" and now he decides it was something other than
membership in an anti-faith faction. At the time, his rationalization
was that she'd had the intent. Maybe he really means that she's accused
him of being an enemy of the faith. The problem is that Rod accuses
Susan of things she did not do, and when Rod is confronted by this fact,
he is undeterred, has a pitiful excuse, and goes back to doing it some more.
>
>>"I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
>
>
> She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
> meaning was
> clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
> subsequently
> refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further innuendo.
>
> Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
> Boys
> Pat?
> Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?
>
>
>>and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it in
>>her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!
>
>
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
> crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
> what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
>
> THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
> WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
> you backflipping bastard.
>
Rod seems to be short a clue. There are lots of factions, real and
imagined. Susan was associating Rod with somebody, not somebody who was
anti faith, nobody in particular.
>
>
>>Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
>>inference,
>
>
> Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record
>
Rod accuses me of lying, but I've already shown that Susan had not
accused him of being a member of an anti-faith faction, certainly not
the gawdahafull public accusation that Rod rabbited on about, and then
declared to have been her _intent_ rather than a public accusation.
What is the point of pointing out the facts to Rod when he's going to
dismiss it as me lying?
>
>
>>In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you were
>>accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
>>assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.
>
>
> Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
> details"
>
> Snip
>
>>"Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
>>to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
>>anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
>>explain/substantiate/justify."
>>Rod, 4 September 2003
>>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> lm=8ccded73.0309040335.42669bd%40posting.google.com
>
>>You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation, and it
>>had already been found wanting.
>
>
> What I see is you quoting what I have said all along.
> What are you "wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words
> "Enemy of the Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.
>
See, George, it really is _not_ the point that Susan did not call him an
enemy of the faith, since she's said that he's a member of this
anti-faith faction, and it is not necessary that she didn't actually say
he was a member of this anti-faith faction, since Rod has deduced that
was her intent and he informs me I could see it, too, since I did write
the word "faction"?
No point in following the rabbiting around, Rod will be at the toilet
block, telling me I'm passing out sweets to kids.
>
>>This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
>>that she says about you.
>
>
> I say the police have your toilet block under survelience.
> I could say that there is no clear allegation of association with a
> paedophile
> faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bullshit.
> Wouldn't it Pat?
>
>
>>You've been repeating lies, and when you are
>>confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case, one
>>which was already exposed as simply your own inference.
>
>
> And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your
> eyes) in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-
>
>>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
>>understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
>>understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>>
>>So what's changed Pat?
>>
>
> "You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
> That is what has changed" PK
>
> Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
> supposed "lie".
>
Does it look familiar, George? I don't see that I need to continue to
respond to it.
>
>>>If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
>>>convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post record...
>>>why bother?
>>>
>>
>>Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
>>examples!
>
>
> The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
> have said all along.
> (Why don't you put up your links to posts purporting to show Baha'is
> defending each other from abusive innuendo and allegations that
> actually
> demonstrated the opposite....they served as good examples of exactly
> what you are doing now).
>
>
>>When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
>>anti-faith, you rationalise,
>
>
> Lie. I never made such acknowledgment.
He forgets, that when lack of a public accusation to the effect was
pointed out, that Rod had read it from Susan's mind, Rod's fallback was
"intent",
"You didn't have to and "no thanks" the prospect makes grown men
tremble. Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was
prompted to comment upon it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302142121.7521204f%40posting.google.com""
Susan had the perfectly clear "intent" of such an accusation, or, so Rod
says. If Rod _does_ have evidence of Susan calling him a member of an
anti-faith faction, let him produce it, and advance his cause.
> I recognised (as did you)
> that she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the
> anti faith faction.
> All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of language.
>
Rod seems to see "public allegation that a member of the Baha'i Faith is
a member of an anti faith faction", is really a semantic quibble. Hey,
I'm thinking that if it is now a semantic quibble for Rod, why has he
bothered anyone with his suspcions of Susan's perfectly clear "intent"?
>
>>rather than apologise.
>
>
> I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
> that you are earlier.
>
Not really a member of an anti-faith faction, not really an enemy of the
faith, what really? "You guys"? YOU GUUYS? Yes, that was Susan's
words. She addressed Rod as "you guys". All this nonsense about how
she called him an enemy of the faith, but not really an enemy of the
faith, but really a member of an anti faith faction, but not really in
so many words: it's been about "you guys". So, George, what can I
contribute to the discussion at this point?
>
>>You pursue your jihad,
>
>
> Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
> previously
> mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
> wanker.
>
"you guys"
>
>>saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
>>faith (though I did not show that link here),
>
>
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
>
> Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?
>
"you guys"
>
>>and when you are confronted
>>and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
>>and rationalise your libels,
>
>
> By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
> of what transpired?
>
"you guys"
>
>>>>A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
>>>
>>>Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
>>>to what others say with links to their posts.
>>>
>>
>>Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my
views.
>
>
> By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
> doing
> otherwise.
>
"faction" not "anti-faith faction" "kook", hmmmm, starting to look appropro
>
>>Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
>>on words you put in her mouth.
>
>
> Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
> and
> innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
> obnoxious,
> one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction"
> And Susan has been such a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly
> clarify
> any misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all
> read...clear
> and
> unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
> Pat?...ever
> ready
> to engage in vitriol free resolution from the outset.....one only has
> to
> review the
> lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
> 'Why
> you
> should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.
>
Yep, it was Rod's intent that she'd called him this that or the other
thing. She called him, "you guys".
> Arsehole. .
>
>
>>She never called you "anti-faith";
>
>
> She never used those words.
>
"you guys"
>
>>you made that up;
>
>
> I never said she used those words.
>
She said "you guys". Rod said she "public allegation that a member
of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction". Rod said,
"She confirmed the categorisation as EofF."
>
>>and she never called you "enemy of the faith",
>
>
> She never used those words.
>
She said "you guys". Rod said she "public allegation that a member
of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction". Rod said,
"She confirmed the categorisation as EofF." But Rod had previously
decided that Susan was too astute to call him an enemy of the faith.
What words did she use to do this? Could it really have been "you guys"?
> > you've made that up, too.
>
> I never said she used those words either.
>
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
>
> The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!
>
I didn't say anti-faith; that's what Rod said.
>
>>Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
>>up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?
>
>
> I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.
>
>
>>>This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
>>>invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your assertions...each
>>>time you fire a snide shot and flee.
>>
>>Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.
>
>
> And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
> I have said all along.
>
He's out of touch.
>
>> Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
>>allegations were solely your inferences.
>
>
> That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
> a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
> 'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
> recognised
> at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.
>
The term which Susan used is "you guys". The term that Rod is using to
describe how Susan has maligned him is "member of an anti-faith faction
though" not in those exact words, and enemy of the faith, "confirmed",
though not in those exact words. Can you correlate "you guys" to enemy
of the faith, or member of an anti-faith faction? I think there has
been some tremendous stretching here.
>
>>Nothing changes, though.
>
>
>>So what's changed Pat?
>>
>
> "You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
> That is
> what has changed" PK
>
> Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
> the
> issue.
>
George, does it look familiar?
>
>>>It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute an
>>>argument of any merit.
>>>
>>
>>The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called
>>you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
>>anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended
to do
>>... so they should substantiate your allegation.
>
>
> Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-
>
> "This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK
>
Rod wants to ignore lots of things at Beliefnet. Perhaps he has focused
on one thing, much the same way that "faction" (my word choice) became
"anti-faith faction" (Rod's term) for Susan's "you guys".
> You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
> to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
> was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
> only
> expose you further as a lying pissant.
>
See, he wants to accuse me of filibuster, and just repeating the same
old stuff, choking the newsgroup with a monster message, batted back and
forth each day, with no end in sight, would look like a filibuster, and
I'm not interested in it.
>
>>You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
>
>
> Pissant is staple diet of jackass.
>
Rod has decided what Susan intended, what I've meant, and then when Rod
does not like correction, he accuses me of backflip, and when I show him
that my opinions have been long held, he's got some sage country wisdom
about staple diets.
No comment on just what Susan said to constitute a public accusation
that he is a member of an anti-faith faction, something she's never
done, and/or a confirmed enemy of the faith, another charge she did not
make.
>
>>>>When you label yourself
>>>>an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote the
>>>>other party.
>>>
>>>Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed the
>>>parallel
>>>to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
>>>asking-
>>>"Is this what we do to others".
>>
Does this look like we're running over the same route, George?
>>No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,
>
>
> A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
> can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
> what
> it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy.
> What "Susan had done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to
> obscure it.
>
Susan wrote "you guys", and though I could allow for Rod being
dissatisfied at being addressed like that, I certainly did not read it
as an accusation that he was an enemy of the faith, etc.
>
>>but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another
>
> matter.
>
> What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
> or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
> serious
> false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
> IT *CHANGES* NOTHING!
> And that's the backflipping point.
>
George, the sad thing about is all the stuff I point out before I
conclude with why he's a tragic figure, that's all irrelevant to him,
too. That's the point - he doesn't care that all his huffing about
Susan calling him this that and the other thing appears to be Susan
addressing him as "you gusy", not enemy of the faith, or anything like it.
>
>>You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the Faith,
>
> not
>
>>Susan.
>
>
> So it was her spelling that originally upset you?
> Go ahead....make my day...put forward an alternate explanation for
> your
> discomfort
> with the mysterious thing "Susan done".
>
"you guys" is the "thing Susan done" I don't know if Rod has forgotten
it in his hysteria, or if he wants to ignore it.
>
>>It stems from your own mind, though you have
>>the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.
>
>
> I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
> that
> "Susan apologise".
My mistake. Rod had asked Susan to "explain or withdraw" her "impotent
venom allegations".
> And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
> alleged imaginings.
> You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU have said let alone
> what I have said.
>
See, George. I've figured out that Rod's steam about Susan accusing him
of this that or the other thing, accusations he hasn't specifically
substantiated, go back to her addressing him as "you guys". So, that
makes me fanciful?
>
>>>When subsequently asked to explain
>>>your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation you
>>>advised that
>>>it was my response to what she said that changed things.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
>>and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
>>year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put words in
>>my mouth.
>
>
> God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
> clear
> objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
> assessment
> of my "jackass" response to her allegation.
>
Rod has not shown that Susan aligned him with an "anti-faith faction".
My objection to his charges of such, are not a backflip. I never
endorsed the stupid thing. Rod has found where I used the term
"faction" in this discussion, and has added the significant part
"anti-faith" and expected me to "aye-aye", and when I object to being
misquoted, he accuses me of backflipping. Remmeber, Rod has not shown
Susan saying he was "anti-faith" or an enemy of the faith; she addressed
him as "you guys".
>
> Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
> assumptions/innuendo/allegations
> of
> anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
> apologists.
> Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in "exactly the
> kind
> of crap".
>
>
>>"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
>>B-Net, and
>>then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
>
> believe',
>
>>was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got shoved in
>
> his face
>
>>at B-Net, a dialectic."
>>- me, 21 January 2003
>>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> lm=3E2E0CB6.57E08529%40ameritel.net
>
>>"You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
>>- Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
>>(above)
>>
>>
>>>Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
>>
>>You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be something
>>lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
>>of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
>>someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>
> Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
> then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
> Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?
>
>
>>>you called her
>>>out for
>>
>>I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
>
>
> "Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
> The "bad manners" of falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith
> faction,
> Arsewipe.
>
You see, George. Susan did use the term "you guys" and he's decided she
called him an enemy of the faith (though not in those exact words). I
did use the word "faction" and Rod would like to remind me I really
meant "anti-faith" faction. I don't get the "in so many words" though.
I'm being misquoted, and he's just lying about what Susan (did not)
accuse him of, lying unashamedly.
>
>>>it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding her
>>>erases
>>>the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
>>>impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
>>>
>>
>>I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
>
>
> What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I
> was "less of a jackass" two years prior.
> Now you say everything changes because I pursued Susan too long
> for what she did wrong.
>
I don't know what the two years prior is about.
>
>>Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.
>
>
> Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
> what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
> jackass"?
>
> Your tribal bias bullshit is repugnant.
> You will stand by Susans shit.
> You will stand by Joplins shit.
> You will tell me neither stink...and that I should change my sox.
>
Well, this bit of nonsense looks new. But it is a lot of work
correcting some of the errors in such a long post. I'm accused of a
tribal bias. Rod has me in an unnamed faction, since he doesn't say if
it is the faction of people with Indian last names, or Yanks, or
software folks, etc.
>
>>You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
>>when you are confronted.
>
>
> When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
> your previously stated position I will consider it.
>
>
>>>Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the faith?
>>>
>>
>>I told you that in September. Last year
>
>
> You backflipped in September last year and I said so then
>
>
>>I told you that you were reading her mind.
>
>
> I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
> her post, and yours.
"Your intent was perfectly clear, even diplomatic Pat was
prompted to comment upon it."
Backflip Wicks
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302142121.7521204f%40posting.google.com
>
>
>>Even you said in September that she didn't
>>lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being
>>anti-faith,
>
>
> That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
> the
> faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
> grounds?
>
Rod doesn't substantiate or retract. That's the problem. Susan
addressed him as "you guys" and away it goes ....
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ends that reply