Pat K, A joke: Re: What on Earth.
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
> BTW, had you thought of getting a refund on your education?
Rod has your debating technique on TRB figured out, thats for sure,
and he is a Baha'i. Had you ever thought of answering his post ?
Reliplur9
From: Rod <kas...@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
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=8ccded73.030914
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..
>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=8ccded73.0302132249.
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-
> "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=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.
> 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=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.
> > 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.
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bu9vl4$eu80a$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
>
>
>>BTW, had you thought of getting a refund on your education?
>
>
> Rod has your debating technique on TRB figured out, thats for sure,
> and he is a Baha'i. Had you ever thought of answering his post ?
>
Yes I had. Over the past several months I've pointed out to him that
he'd been hounding Susan for something she had not said, something he
says she intended to say. The subtlety may be a bit much for you, though.
Have you sorted out the notion that the not every bit of dialog in a
work of fiction would be the views of the writer, that these would be
the views that the writer has that character expressing? If not, as I
said earlier, maybe you could get a refund on your education?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 2:20 pm:
>
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> in article bu9vl4$eu80a$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
>> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
>>
>>
>>> BTW, had you thought of getting a refund on your education?
>>
>>
>> Rod has your debating technique on TRB figured out, thats for
sure,
>> and he is a Baha'i. Had you ever thought of answering his post ?
>>
>
> Yes I had. Over the past several months I've pointed out to him that
> he'd been hounding Susan for something she had not said, something he
> says she intended to say. The subtlety may be a bit much for you, though.
Telling more twisted untruths again. Since when has "your pointing
out" in the past, and answering Rod's recent post the same thing?
> Have you sorted out the notion that the not every bit of dialog in a
> work of fiction would be the views of the writer, that these would be
> the views that the writer has that character expressing? If not, as I
> said earlier, maybe you could get a refund on your education?
As a mature student in my 40's I qualified for a state scholarship
award to attend University for five years. Money did not buy me
University education as it does in the US . I had to pay nothing so I
could not receive a refund. Your twisted remark has nothing to do
with *REFUNDS* its spiteful jealousy coming from a Bahai who like his
religion Baha'ism has recently become riddled with
anti-intellectualism. Your remark only shows yourself up having never
aquired the qualifications to attend University in the first place.
From what Rod has correctly described you. Had you gone on for further
education I doubt if you would have lasted a fresher's year before
being kicked out on your butt for telling all the lecturers what to
do.
Reliplur9
Dermod Ryder
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > Have you sorted out the notion that the not every bit of dialog in a
> > work of fiction would be the views of the writer, that these would be
> > the views that the writer has that character expressing? If not, as I
> > said earlier, maybe you could get a refund on your education?
>
> As a mature student in my 40's I qualified for a state scholarship
> award to attend University for five years. Money did not buy me
> University education as it does in the US . I had to pay nothing so I
> could not receive a refund.
Perhaps the taxpayers merit one!
> Your twisted remark has nothing to do
> with *REFUNDS* its spiteful jealousy coming from a Bahai who like his
> religion Baha'ism has recently become riddled with
> anti-intellectualism.
That doesn't affect you then.
> Your remark only shows yourself up having never
> aquired the qualifications to attend University in the first place.
Didn't you qualify as a mature student i.e. not really have to have achieved
the educational qualifications that others had. How many "A" - levels do
you have or GCSEs? Do they include English as a subject?
> From what Rod has correctly described you. Had you gone on for further
> education I doubt if you would have lasted a fresher's year before
> being kicked out on your butt for telling all the lecturers what to
> do.
Spoken with the gusto of one who has failed the University of Life here on
TRB ... and doesn't realise it.
>
> Reliplur9
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 17/1/04 10:27 pm:
> Spoken with the gusto of one who has failed the University of Life here
> on TRB ... and doesn't realise it.
Spoken with gusto from a waster who failed the University of *real*
life.
Dermod Ryder
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.0401...@posting.google.com...
So you are going to meet me then!
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bubg1e$fr5ca$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 2:20 pm:
>
>>reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>in article bu9vl4$eu80a$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
>>>kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>BTW, had you thought of getting a refund on your education?
>>>
>>>
>>>Rod has your debating technique on TRB figured out, thats for
>
> sure,
>
>>>and he is a Baha'i. Had you ever thought of answering his post ?
>>>
>>
>>Yes I had. Over the past several months I've pointed out to him that
>>he'd been hounding Susan for something she had not said, something he
>>says she intended to say. The subtlety may be a bit much for you, though.
>
>
> 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.
>
>>Have you sorted out the notion that the not every bit of dialog in a
>>work of fiction would be the views of the writer, that these would be
>>the views that the writer has that character expressing? If not, as I
>>said earlier, maybe you could get a refund on your education?
>
>
> As a mature student in my 40's I qualified for a state scholarship
> award to attend University for five years. Money did not buy me
> University education as it does in the US . I had to pay nothing so I
> could not receive a refund.
I'm sure it is all for the best.
> Your twisted remark has nothing to do
> with *REFUNDS* its spiteful jealousy
Well, no. It is not jealous of you, far from it. In grade school and
high school, I got the basic concept of fiction - that what the
fictional character's statements were to further the story line, not
necessarily to express the author's beliefs (Ayn Rand being a notable
exception). That you would argue that bigotted dialog in a play makes
the playwright a bigot, is a gross failure to appreciate the art. That
sort of fallacious argument would make William Shakespeare a believer in
witchcraft, since he had witches in Macbeth, and a man with serious
'serial murderer' predelictions; its all rubbish!
> coming from a Bahai who like his
> religion Baha'ism has recently become riddled with
> anti-intellectualism.
George, I guess that in now accusing me of anti-intellectualism, based
on your jealousy of my ability to appreciate art as art, you seem to
miss the fact that you are the one demonstrating the lack of a higher
intellect here. Return to "Go"; do not collect 100 Lb.
> Your remark only shows yourself up having never
> aquired the qualifications to attend University in the first place.
That's what I'm saying. You've shown a lack of ability to appreciate
art as something other than something like a political expression of the
artist''s beliefs.
> From what Rod has correctly described you. Had you gone on for further
> education I doubt if you would have lasted a fresher's year before
> being kicked out on your butt for telling all the lecturers what to
> do.
Hilarious, George. Given your inability to distinguish fictional
entertainment from a statement of the author's own beliefs, I don't see
you are in a position to perform intellectual assessments on people.
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@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.
Dermod Ryder
"kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:bucpjv$fv8ml$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > From what Rod has correctly described you. Had you gone on for further
> > education I doubt if you would have lasted a fresher's year before
> > being kicked out on your butt for telling all the lecturers what to
> > do.
>
> Hilarious, George. Given your inability to distinguish fictional
> entertainment from a statement of the author's own beliefs, I don't see
> you are in a position to perform intellectual assessments on people.
You should remember that the course pursued at University by Error was of no
significant intellectual content and his education prior to that, despite
the best efforts of his teachers, failed to penetrate the dark recess
between his auditory sensors. It taught him how to use a paintbrush to
splash coloured paint on canvas and leave the onlooker to guess just what
exactly the "artist" was trying to represent. In such a course, the use of
English is optional and appreciation of literature or an ability to
construct an argument is not at all necessary. Standards in education have
declined to the extent the art of the precis has all but disappeared - I
doubt that Error even knows what one is, never mind acquired the expertise
of actually producing one. In its lieu comes the endless regurgitation of
often opposing opinion, scribed by others, posing in the minds of the
intellectually challenged, of which he is a primary example, the impression
of a wisdom that just is not there. There was a day when knowlege of St
Columbus and the Anglian Church was an absolute bar to University entry but,
alas, today any Tom Dick or Error can gain admittance by doodling with a
paint pot.
But, at least, my alma mater has not descended to these levels - it
resolutely refuses to offer such courses and was, to its immense relief
spared the impact of Error on the camopus.
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bucpjv$fv8ml$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT...@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 <kas...@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...@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" <mrey...@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...@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" <mrey...@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
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302132249.48dd619a%40posting.google.com
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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0309040335.42669bd%40posting.google.com
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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3E2E0CB6.57E08529%40ameritel.net
"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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0309040335.42669bd%40posting.google.com
... 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
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302132249.48dd619a%40posting.google.com
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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0309040335.42669bd%40posting.google.com
>
>>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.
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".
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
>
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 18/1/04 2:47 am:
The waster is back with his usual gerning jealous dribble again
because someone put a University education to successful good use,
late and all as it was, and he WASTED his education. His University
years and whatever degree he aquired only qualified him to fill out
welfare forms to sponge off the state all of his life. Even immigrants
coming from eastern Europe can get a job but no one would employ this
big lazy jerk.
Relplur9
Dermod Ryder
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > But, at least, my alma mater has not descended to these levels - it
> > resolutely refuses to offer such courses and was, to its immense relief
> > spared the impact of Error on the camopus.
>
> The waster is back with his usual gerning jealous dribble again
> because someone put a University education to successful good use,
> late and all as it was, and he WASTED his education. His University
> years and whatever degree he aquired only qualified him to fill out
> welfare forms to sponge off the state all of his life. Even immigrants
> coming from eastern Europe can get a job but no one would employ this
> big lazy jerk.
The same old discredited crap which is a really poor response from one who
claims he put his university education to good use.
One should really forgive him ... after all he didn't manage to get to
university at a time that literacy was an entrance requirement and his
belated career there has done nothing to improve that situation.
Maybe in 6-9 months I'll be able to tell you what I'm up to at the moment,
utilising to the full, not merely my formal education but much else besides.
Suffice to say, that, to date, it has already resulted in a significant
change to Government policy and there is more to follow that will contribute
to communal welfare ... and all because the Old Reaper used the grey matter
of which you display a significant deficiency. Your little old biddies can't
keep you informed any longer as they are not informed any longer, your
having exposed their and your inadequacies in the field of information
handling.
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 18/1/04 10:22 am:
Who cares what you are up to. If its anything to go by your so called
educational CV, you are as qualified as hamhead's is , that is
qualification to be a shithouse dodger and floor sweeper in some local
pub.
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
>
>
> The waster is back with his usual gerning jealous dribble again
> because someone put a University education to successful good use,
> late and all as it was, and he WASTED his education. His University
> years and whatever degree he aquired only qualified him to fill out
> welfare forms to sponge off the state all of his life. Even immigrants
> coming from eastern Europe can get a job but no one would employ this
> big lazy jerk.
>
> Relplur9
>
Personally I do feel there is some value in painting at the university.
That doesn't mean I've seen a sign that you've benefitted from an
education. On the contrary, your return to these low accusations oe
2002, suggests you really don't learn at a normal pace.
Anyone here may diasagree w/ much of what Dermod writes, but we can all
see he's had an education, because he's capable of complex thought.
It's a contrast with what one can read of your faculties, where you
spout whatever you'd like to believe and claim various authorities, MPs,
professors, etc. agree with you because you fail to understand what they
are saying.
Your attempts to paint Dermod as a sponge have _already_ failed. David
Gordon posted here over a year ago to describe his experience working
with Dermod. Now you are gratuitously bashing a fellow for looking
after his daughter who needs constant supervision, and you've already
been told what a pathetic nasty you present yourself as when you do this.
Best wishes and grow up,
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 3:02 pm:
> On the contrary, your return to these low accusations oe
> 2002, suggests you really don't learn at a normal pace.
On the contrary according to fair dinkum bluey's post of the decade
you PK keep sticking your glass chin out and get stuffed every time.
Reliplur9
From: Rod <kas...@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
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=8ccded73.030914
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..
>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
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.
> "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=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.
> 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
> > 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
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 3:02 pm:
> Anyone here may diasagree w/ much of what Dermod writes, but we can all
> see he's had an education, because he's capable of complex thought.
Only a dumb US BIGS like Kohli could make a statement like that. Why
dont you contact ( YOUR OWN KIND) the AO BIGS over here and ask them
how much complex thought they think he has, to see if they agree with
you
You will be in for a shock..................Reliplur9
Bahá'í Council for Northern Ireland
Hackney House,
64 Old Dundonald Road,
Belfast BT16 1XS.
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bue6se$gsrsk$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 3:02 pm:
>
>
>>On the contrary, your return to these low accusations oe
>>2002, suggests you really don't learn at a normal pace.
>
>
> On the contrary according to fair dinkum bluey's post of the decade
> you PK keep sticking your glass chin out and get stuffed every time.
>
> Reliplur9
>
> From: Rod <kas...@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
>
(snip)
Looks like a repost, George.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=budb3n%24giv3v%241%40ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de
Best wishes
Dermod Ryder
> dont you contact ( YOUR OWN KIND) the AO BIGS over here and ask them
> how much complex thought they think he has, to see if they agree with
> you
>
> You will be in for a shock..................Reliplur9
>
>
> Bahá'í Council for Northern Ireland
> Hackney House,
> 64 Old Dundonald Road,
> Belfast BT16 1XS.
>
> bc...@bahai.org.uk
Wrong address, Error! Why don't you get an update from your old biddy
contacts for the proper one?
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 18/1/04 7:07 pm:
Why dont you write and tell them that smartass Dermod Ryder says they
have put the wrong address in CommuNIqué - Newsletter of the Bahá'í
Community in Northern Ireland Issue 89 - 2 Sharáf 160 BE - 1 January
2004 CE.
Why is it every time you open your big gob you put both feet in it?
Reliplur9
EDITORIAL INFORMATION
CommuNIqué is published by the Bahá'í Council for Northern Ireland.
Views expressed by the various contributors are not necessarily those
of the editor, or of the Bahá'í Council for Northern Ireland or the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United Kingdom.
EDITOR: Dr Iain Palin - e-mail him here.
DEADLINE: CommuNIqué is published on the 1st of each Gregorian month.
All material, especially articles must be in by the 18th day of the
preceding month. Community news and photographs are especially
welcome. If sending photographs by e-mail please ensure they are in
JPEG format.
FEEDBACK: All comments and complaints should be addressed to the
editor.
Let me hear from you!
Bahá'í Council for Northern Ireland
Hackney House,
64 Old Dundonald Road,
Belfast BT16 1XS.
© National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United Kingdom,
27 Rutland Gate,
London SW7 1PD.
BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE
http://www.btinternet.com/~iain.s.palin/bc4ni/comm/editor.htm
>
>
Dermod Ryder
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 3:02 pm:
>
> > Anyone here may diasagree w/ much of what Dermod writes, but we can all
> > see he's had an education, because he's capable of complex thought.
>
> Only a dumb US BIGS like Kohli could make a statement like that. Why
> dont you contact ( YOUR OWN KIND) the AO BIGS over here and ask them
> how much complex thought they think he has, to see if they agree with
> you
>
> You will be in for a shock..................Reliplur9
Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already instructed
to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not attained
to. The criteria for achieving such a glorious mention in despatches
include that one's critiques of the AO are credible, hard-hitting and
accurate. So far you have failed miserably to achieve that high ranking -
ndeed my sources tell me that you're rated as such a balloon that you don't
even merit a separate file.
Paul Hammond
Dermod doesn't see his work in caring for his daughter as
a waste - you already alienated everyone, even Dermod's
opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
time you tried this tack. In fact, Dermod probably
doesn't even see his efforts in that direction as "work"
- it's one of the things that marks him out as a decent,
sincere human being.
Dermod, unlike yourself, does not have a psychological need
to justify himself by ranting at people on the net.
Are you REALLY that insecure??
Paul
Paul Hammond
Have you been interviewing Nima about what is involved
in Pub work, Error? I don't think he really has the
first clue about it - maybe you have a friend who'd be
better informed - I've heard that there are a number of
pubs in Belfast, you could perhaps research there.
Who cares what Dermod is up to? Well, clearly YOU do,
since you feel the need to go around telling the
world your own opinion about what Dermod spends his
time doing.
The fact that you get it totally wrong only proves
the accuracy of your name: Error.
Paul
Susan Maneck
>opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
>time you tried this tack.
Dear Paul,
George started posting here in the first place because he was mad at me. But I
did warn him that he was venturing into forbidden territory by saying anything
negative about Dermod's relationship to Doodle-Bug.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Susan Maneck
>
>Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already instructed
>to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not attained
>to.
Yeah? Can you show us the document where they do this?
reli...@yahoo.com
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 19/1/04 4:32 am:
>> you already alienated everyone, even Dermod's
>> opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
>> time you tried this tack.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> George started posting here in the first place because he was mad at
> me. But I did warn him that he was venturing into forbidden territory by
> saying anything negative about Dermod's relationship to Doodle-Bug.
Telling porky pies again Dr Maneck. Show us on TRB evidence to
support your above claim. Thats not what you said in this private
letter on the subject prior to me coming to TRB. Inclosed is
documented evidence by your own hand what you wrote about Dermod and
the Doodle-bug after you pumped me for information about him. In fact
it's I who say positive statements about his relationship to the
Doodle-bug and its you who say negative ones about him being *inhuman*
when he is not talking about the poor kid. on the internet. So do you
think different now Dr Maneck?
> GF: I have been informed his disabled daughter is the bond that holds his
> marriage together, and he devotes a lot of time looking after her to let his
> wife get out to Bahai meetings. So he does have some good points also.
SM: Yeah, when he starts talking about his daughter he almost sounds
human.
Full post:
From: Susan Maneck <sma...@bellsouth.net>
To: george fleming <george....@btinternet.com>
Date: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: Private
> GF: He left the Faith some 20 years ago having been a member for less than a
> year.
SM: Less than a year? Then why is he so obsessed with it? I can
understand why Nima, Juan, Alison, etc. can't let go. They were
Baha'is for more than two decades.
> GF: I have heard his one ambition was to be Irelands first Baha'i CB.
SM: Yeah, he has written asking for this several times as I understand
it.
But from what you have told me,the UHJ will not oblidge his wishes.
I suppose if he actually was enjoying some success in forming a new
Baha'i
organization they might do something like that, but I doubt it very
much.
Tweny years is a long time to be out of the Faith.
> GF: I have been informed his disabled daughter is the bond that holds his
> marriage together, and he devotes a lot of time looking after her to let his
> wife get out to Bahai meetings. So he does have some good points also.
SM: Yeah, when he starts talking about his daughter he almost sounds
human.
> GF: This letter plus her father's letter to that CB list shows that there is
> more squabbling and fragmentation amongst themselves that has been going
> on for years to ever really damage the true Baha'i Faith.
SM: No, but there are always a few Baha'is who fall victime to this
nonsense. What Juan & co. are doing is much more serious, IMO. I see
people losing their faith because of him everyday.
>
> GF: One good point I notice here is her admittance that Remey was not only
> senile but was a fraud.
SM: Yeah, the admission of senility is very significant. Some
Remeyites have
argued that this was all made up to discredit him.
> GF: One begins to wonder if Juan Cole is the beginning of another diseased
> branch leading from them.
SM: I don't think he became diseased through contact with the
Jensenites. I
think he met with the Jensenites because he was already diseased.
>GF: Looks like we will just have to wait and see. Juan Cole could be
our next
> official CB. But surely then all others who still had contact with him
> could be declared CB's also?
SM: Baha'is in good standing would be expected to dissassociate
themselves as soon as he was declared CB. But they wouldn't
automatically kick anyone out who had been associating with him at the
time.
> GF: Which would include most non Baha'is who support him on talisman9.
SM: Currently Baha'is are being asked to avoid discussing the Faith
with any who have shown a fixed antagonism towards it. But they are
not asked to shun
these people and I doubt if they will be. If they actually form a
separate
organization I suppose the situation could change.
> GF Would you not agree their misdemeanours then would not be
> their past behaviour, but their association with a covenant breaker called
> Jaun Cole? And our beloved Dermod here would have aquired his goal at last?
SM: Probably only if a separate organization is formed (which maybe is
why
Dermod is pushing for it.) Baha'is are not automatically asked to shun
all
non-Bahais who associate with CBs. It always depends on the
circumstances. I
suppose if their support for Juan continues to be this vocal Baha'is
might
indeed be asked to avoid them. But they still won't be officially
declared
CB I predict.
warmest, Susan
>
> warmest, Susan
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 18/1/04 10:09 pm:
>
> <reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a38fb763.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> in article bue6se$gsrsk$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
>> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 18/1/04 3:02 pm:
>>
>>> Anyone here may diasagree w/ much of what Dermod writes, but we
can all
>>> see he's had an education, because he's capable of complex
thought.
>>
>> Only a dumb US BIGS like Kohli could make a statement like that.
Why
>> dont you contact ( YOUR OWN KIND) the AO BIGS over here and ask
them
>> how much complex thought they think he has, to see if they agree
with
>> you
>>
>> You will be in for a shock..................Reliplur9
>
>
> Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already instructed
> to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not attained
> to.
This is not what your BIGS lovebombing buddies Kohli & Manic on TRB
think. According to them I am more morally evil and "spiritually
corrosive" to the Bahai in Norn Ireland than you ever were or ever
will be. Recently you have become that close to them it wouldn't
suprise me they have set up a nice little firesides to warmly nudge
poor Dermod back into the fold.
The criteria for achieving such a glorious mention in despatches
> include that one's critiques of the AO are credible, hard-hitting and
> accurate. So far you have failed miserably to achieve that high ranking -
> ndeed my sources tell me that you're rated as such a balloon that you don't even merit a separate file.
Does Kohli and Manic approve of this discription? After all they are
your BIGS friends? RP
Dermod Ryder
> > Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already
instructed
> > to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not
attained
> > to.
>
> This is not what your BIGS lovebombing buddies Kohli & Manic on TRB
> think.
It doesn't matter what they think. They are not Grumpies or indeed in the
lower echelons that can tell BCNI what to do!
> According to them I am more morally evil and "spiritually
> corrosive" to the Bahai in Norn Ireland than you ever were or ever
> will be. Recently you have become that close to them it wouldn't
> suprise me they have set up a nice little firesides to warmly nudge
> poor Dermod back into the fold.
Has it taken you this length of time to realise what the game is? Tut tut -
you are slow! But then, you never have been worthy of attaining the high
station of Cyberwarrior First Class. After all you're the wimp who went to
that Bahai meeting to be fawned over by your fellow BIGS. I'll bet that in
all the hugging and smooching you never told them you were out or that you
alluded to Abdul Baha the "Noddy" story teller. Do you want me to do it for
you?
> The criteria for achieving such a glorious mention in despatches
> > include that one's critiques of the AO are credible, hard-hitting and
> > accurate. So far you have failed miserably to achieve that high
ranking -
> > ndeed my sources tell me that you're rated as such a balloon that you
don't even merit a separate file.
>
> Does Kohli and Manic approve of this discription? After all they are
> your BIGS friends? RP
Have you seen or discerned their disputing this? The answer and conclusion
is obvious to everybody but you.
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 19/1/04 2:18 am:
> Dermod doesn't see his work in caring for his daughter as
> opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
> doesn't even see his efforts in that direction as "work"
> - it's one of the things that marks him out as a decent,
> sincere human being.
>
> Dermod, unlike yourself, does not have a psychological need
> to justify himself by ranting at people on the net.
>
> Are you REALLY that insecure??
The waster shut his loud foul mouth ranting and raving and returned to
become a more *HUMAN* person ( Susan maneck's words) on TRB only
because he had his wings clipped, by someone who knew how to do it.
You can rant away as much as you want Hamhead it does not bother me
infact that is just what the AO want you to do so as to keep up your
AO mole front.
RP
>
> Paul
Dermod Ryder
> become a more *HUMAN* person ( Susan maneck's words) on TRB only
> because he had his wings clipped, by someone who knew how to do it.
Who was that? I think we should be told!
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quotes please? I concede that you don't always seem like a sincere and
decent person, and I can point to instances to explain my POV, but
"morally evil" and "spiritually corrosive" are _not_ my descriptions of you.
> Recently you have become that close to them it wouldn't
> suprise me they have set up a nice little firesides to warmly nudge
> poor Dermod back into the fold.
>
Hahaha! What would do then? The UK NSA might figure out some way to
retaliate for us bringing him into their tent. Did you even think of that?
>
> The criteria for achieving such a glorious mention in despatches
>
>>include that one's critiques of the AO are credible, hard-hitting and
>>accurate. So far you have failed miserably to achieve that high ranking -
>>ndeed my sources tell me that you're rated as such a balloon that you don't even merit a separate file.
>
>
> Does Kohli and Manic approve of this discription? After all they are
> your BIGS friends? RP
>
Dermod uses a bit of lace and perfume in some of his more flowery
descriptions. Dermod has been a critic of the AO, and though many are
put off by his style, he doesn't have the track record of spamming,
going after other posters employers, etc. such that it is possible to
take him seriously for what he is saying. You don't merit a separate
file as a critic of the AO; your separate file would be in netabuse, and
it would be at the ISP.
Best wishes!
Paul Hammond
> >you already alienated everyone, even Dermod's
> >opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
> >time you tried this tack.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> George started posting here in the first place because he was mad at me. But I
> did warn him that he was venturing into forbidden territory by saying anything
> negative about Dermod's relationship to Doodle-Bug.
>
Yes, that was the point of discourse that I was referring to.
This was while Dermod was still in your killfile, and, IIRC,
while George was still claiming to be a Baha'i.
I can't believe he's going down that track again, when all
the same people are here who saw him do it the first time.
Does he think we've all stopped being decent, sincere
human beings in the mean time???
Paul
Paul Hammond
I guess, you already know that we *don't* think that you
are a decent, sincere human being, and you figure that
your reputation with us can't sink any lower.
What a stupid git!
reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a38fb763.04011...@posting.google.com>...
Susan Maneck
>But I did warn him that he was venturing into forbidden territory by
>> > saying anything negative about Dermod's relationship to Doodle-Bug.
>>
>> Telling porky pies again Dr Maneck. Show us on TRB evidence to
>> support your above claim
Everyone else remembers, even if you can't.
>Thats not what you said in this private
>> letter on the subject prior to me coming to TRB.
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China? You weren't posting on
TRB then!
Susan Maneck
>> become a more *HUMAN* person ( Susan maneck's words) on TRB only
>> because he had his wings clipped, by someone who knew how to do it.
Huh?
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 19/1/04 3:19 pm:
> Dermod uses a bit of lace and perfume in some of his more flowery
> descriptions. Dermod has been a critic of the AO, and though many are
> put off by his style, he doesn't have the track record of spamming,
> going after other posters employers, etc. such that it is possible to
> take him seriously for what he is saying. You don't merit a separate
> file as a critic of the AO; your separate file would be in netabuse, and
> it would be at the ISP.
As Rod says you are an absolute fecking joke Kohli. When are you going
to realise that you cause more trouble for Bahaism by sticking your
crappy little yank nose into what was happening here in Ireland. It
was none of your fecking business. No posts from me would have ever
gone in the US anywhere had you and that silly troublmaking bitch
Maneck not snitched on me to the UK NSA. and kept out of my flame war
with Dermod.
This guy who you say has been a wonderful critic of the AO has done
more snitching, squirming and whimping and whinging to the AO than
both you and Maneck put together have ever done.
This is what I know he has done .
1) Telephoned ABM Denis Coyle and a number of other AO members.
2) sent letters to IFF
3) sent his wife with a list of downloaded TRB posts to read to a
number of her bahai friends.
4) Got his wife to report me to the Belfast LSA
5) sent me two letters from his solicitor
6) Sent a letter to AO member Pat Craig to report me to the BCNI
In the mean time after all this whinging by ( the so called great
critic of the AO) to me, I stated I was going to report him (plus
send a selected list of his nasty posts to TRB ) to his local council.
Then all hell breaks loose and I am castigated as the greatest
sectarian Prod bastard by the Waster and his henchmen and henchwomen
on TRB.
My threat to report him to his council has never been carried out
*YET*
Susan Maneck
>> your BIGS friends? RP
>
>Have you seen or discerned their disputing this?
Nope, I don't think they are credible, hard-hitting or accurate. But they are
sometimes funny. And George doesn't even have that going for him.
Susan Maneck
>> corrosive" to the Bahai in Norn Ireland than you ever were or ever
>> will be.
You delude yourself. . Dermod might want to make a big deal about your
attending Baha'i meetings there but Pat and I couldn't give a flip. You are
not spiritually corrosive, you are just an idiotic, annoying jerk.
reli...@yahoo.com
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 19/1/04 6:31 pm:
> You are not spiritually corrosive, you are just an idiotic, annoying jerk.
So you dispise lGeorge who you consider is just an idiotic, annoying
jerk, yet you are now playing pals with Dermod another ex bahai who
you once considered spirtually corrosive plus he was not human unless
he talked about the doddlebug. Well well well, times they are a
changing.
signed idiotic, annoying jerk
From: Susan Maneck <sma...@bellsouth.net>
To: george fleming <george....@btinternet.com>
Date: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: Private
He left the Faith some 20
> years ago having been a member for less than a year.
Less than a year? Then why is he so obsessed with it? I can understand
why
Nima, Juan, Alison, etc. can't let go. They were Baha'is for more than
two
decades.
I
> have heard his one ambition was to be Irelands first Baha'i CB.
Yeah, he has written asking for this several times as I understand it.
But from
> what you have told me,the UHJ will not oblidge his wishes.
I suppose if he actually was enjoying some success in forming a new
Baha'i
organization they might do something like that, but I doubt it very
much.
Tweny years is a long time to be out of the Faith.
I have been
> informed his disabled daughter is the bond that holds his marriage
together,
> and he devotes a lot of time looking after her to let his wife get out to
> Bahai meetings. So he does have some good points also.
Yeah, when he starts talking about his daughter he almost sounds
human.
> This letter plus her father's letter to that CB list shows that there is
> more squabbling and fragmentation amongst themselves that has been going
on
> for years to ever really damage the true Baha'i Faith.
No, but there are always a few Baha'is who fall victime to this
nonsense.
What Juan & co. are doing is much more serious, IMO. I see people
losing
their faith because of him everyday.
>
> One good point I notice here is her admittance that Remey was not only
> senile but was a fraud.
Yeah, the admission of senility is very significant. Some Remeyites
have
argued that this was all made up to discredit him.
One begins to wonder if Juan Cole is the
> beginning of another diseased branch leading from them.
I don't think he became diseased through contact with the Jensenites.
I
think he met with the Jensenites because he was already diseased.
>
> Looks like we will just have to wait and see. Juan Cole could be our next
> official CB. But surely then all others who still had contact with him
could
> be declared CB's also?
Baha'is in good standing would be expected to dissassociate themselves
as
soon as he was declared CB. But they wouldn't automatically kick
anyone out
who had been associating with him at the time.
Which would include most non Baha'is who support him
> on talisman9.
Currently Baha'is are being asked to avoid discussing the Faith with
any who
have shown a fixed antagonism towards it. But they are not asked to
shun
these people and I doubt if they will be. If they actually form a
separate
organization I suppose the situation could change.
Would you not agree their misdemeanours then would not be
> their past behaviour, but their association with a covenant breaker called
> Jaun Cole? And our beloved Dermod here would have aquired his goal at
last?
Probably only if a separate organization is formed (which maybe is why
kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article bugs7u$h14fh$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 19/1/04 3:19 pm:
>
>
>>Dermod uses a bit of lace and perfume in some of his more flowery
>>descriptions. Dermod has been a critic of the AO, and though many are
>>put off by his style, he doesn't have the track record of spamming,
>>going after other posters employers, etc. such that it is possible to
>>take him seriously for what he is saying. You don't merit a separate
>>file as a critic of the AO; your separate file would be in netabuse, and
>>it would be at the ISP.
>
>
> As Rod says you are an absolute fecking joke Kohli. When are you going
> to realise that you cause more trouble for Bahaism by sticking your
> crappy little yank nose into what was happening here in Ireland.
Oh? Was this allegation of me making a criminal post, an example of me
sticking my crappy little nose into Ireland?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> CC The Universal House of Justice <secre...@bwc.org>
> US national Spirtual Assembly <usns...@usbnc.org>
> Mr Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net>
>
> Dear sir
>
> Mr Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> a member of the Local Spirtual Assembly
> Bahai Faith in Maryland USA continues to make offensive and criminal
> references to me with regards me threatening I am going to shoot another
> poster on a news group titled talk.religion.bahai. This is a total false
> accusation and I would kindly request that you warn Mr Kohli against
breach
> of section 9. Legality of Content of your ISP.
>
> Thank You
> George Fleming
>
> Offensive and criminal post:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > in article 3FE6083E...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> > kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 21/12/03 8:53 pm:
> > > Susan Maneck wrote:
> > >
> > >>> there is no evidence here
> > >>>> I threatened to shoot Paul Hammond.
> > >>
> > >> I beleive you threatened to beat him up.
> > >
> > > Even if he said that, no one would believe that. Having him shot, or
> > > doing the shooting himself, would be more credible.
> > >
> > > After George wrote,
> > > "You dont seem to realise where I come from people who keep spewing
> > > out such sectarian bigotry like you do get a bullet in the head."
> > >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2696399414d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
> lm
> > > =a38fb763.0309220707.578d2bbe%40posting.google.com
> > >
> > > he followed it up with a request for Paul's whereabouts, hence
the title
> > > of this thread,
> > > "By the way Susan or Karen do you have his phone number and do you
> > > know the name of the Pub he works in. They would be very interesting
> > > to have."
> > >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2696399414d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
> =u
> > > tf-8&safe=off&selm=a38fb763.0309221253.53377b25%40posting.google.com
> > >
> > > This is like last years profession of innocence about arse biscuits.
> >
> > But were is the threat of me beating anyone up in the above quotes?
>
> But George, I already said any statement you may have made about beating
> Paul was not credible, not to anyone other than yourself, perhaps. I
> pointed out that you had threatened to shoot him, despite your denials.
>
> >
> > Like I said I am 62 and he is 30 so let the readers of TRB make up
> > their own minds. They will see you and Susan Maneck are devious
> > fundamentalist Baha'is who wish to bend the truth to suit your own
> > spitful agenda against a poor ex-bahai.
>
> I provided the quotes. I'm not the one pretending I don't know what
any of
> it means.
>
> > This is why Fredrick Glaysher
> > refuses to respond to your devious ways. Fred wrote the following in a
> > recent post:.................Reliplur9
> >
> > "Why I Don't Respond to bahai Fanatics among my Fellow Bahais
>
> Very funny! The fanatics would be the ones making death threats, George.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 9. Legality of Content - The subscriber agrees to use AMERITEL.NET for
> lawful purposes only. The subscriber will not post or transmit any
material,
> through AMERITEL.NET, which violates or infringes upon the rights of
other
> users. This includes, but is not limited to: threatening, abusive,
> defamatory, vulgar or obscene language, any action which threatens
public or
> private rights or which is considered objectionable, any action which
> encourages a criminal offense, any action which gives rise to civil
> liability or violates any law. Attempts to gain unauthorized access to
> outside computer systems are expressly prohibited. Users agree to
abide by
> any and all rules of the network they access through AMERITEL.NET. The
> subscriber agrees to defend and hold harmless AMERITEL.NET, its
directors,
> officers, employees, agents or affiliates for all damages and claims that
> might arise from the subscribers use or misuse of the service, which
damages
> or otherwise harms either the subscriber, AMERITEL.NET or a third party.
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by ameritel.net]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This threat that you made was of a fellow in England. You denied you
threatned him after you had, and I pointed out the relevant facts. It
_had_ nothing to do w/ Ireland. Yet you emailed my ISP accusing me of
some crime.
Here's the deal, George, now I'm thinking I _should_ get more involved
in the ancestral homeland. Looking the other way just has _not_
improved things.
> It
> was none of your fecking business.
Your spamming of a newsgroup which I was trying to use, clearly was my
business! When I objected to your netabuse back then, you flamed me for
it. Making threats is also netabuse, and by trying to intimidate people
whom I would have a discussion w/, OF COURSE YOU ARE INTERFERING WITH MY
BIZNESS! FURTHERMORE, THE FACT YOU REFUSE TO SEE HOW YOUR NETABUSE
MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE TO ME, TELLS ME i REALLY NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO
IMPROVE MY SITUATION - IT WON'T GET BETTER IN YOU HANDS!
> No posts from me would have ever
> gone in the US anywhere had you and that silly troublmaking bitch
> Maneck not snitched on me to the UK NSA.
YOU STUPID DRUNK, EVER YONE OF YOUR POSTS TO USENET GET READ AROUND THE
WORLD - THEY DON'T JUST DROP OFF THE MAP AT THE FALLS ROAD!!! HOW CAN
YOU POSSIBLY FIGURE THAT I'LL BELIEVE YOU CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT???
> and kept out of my flame war
> with Dermod.
>
YOU SHOULD HAVE MET WITH HIM IN PERSON IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A
PUBLIC SPECTACLE OF YOURSELF!!!!
> This guy who you say has been a wonderful critic of the AO has done
> more snitching, squirming and whimping and whinging to the AO than
> both you and Maneck put together have ever done.
hE DOESN'T SPAM MY EMAIL ACCOUNT. hE DOESN'T TRY TO HARASS ME AT WORK.
hE DOESN'T TELL MY isp THAT i'VE MADE SOME CRIMINAL POST TO USENET.
hOPW IN BLAZES CAN YOU PRESUME TO COMPARE YOURSELF TO DERMOD AFTER THE
MISCHIEF YOU'VE CAUSED??
> This is what I know he has done .
>
> 1) Telephoned ABM Denis Coyle and a number of other AO members.
>
I've been in contact with AO people. Didn't you tell me that they'd
just hang up on him anyway, since he was such an infamous enemy of the
BF, or something like that? Surely, this one doesn't count, either
that, or you were mistaken. After you sent letters to the papers in
Australia, you pretty much opened the gates, eh?
> 2) sent letters to IFF
Care to guess why he did that?
After you bash Catholicism, and say you are a member of the IFF, it did
make it sound like the IFF was a haven for Catholic bashers in denial.
But, don't worry abou those letters to the IFF; I've got it on good
account you were not a member there anyway. So, that doesn't count either.
> 3) sent his wife with a list of downloaded TRB posts to read to a
> number of her bahai friends.
Messages which she or they could read at any time, with his help, or
without his help. Get it through your beret, bud, everyone can read
usenet, everyone who can get on the internet. Everything you've written
to date, can be read five years from now, by some Baha'i youth who was
born when you enrolled, and goes off to university five years from now.
They had an interest in the faith, and they knew your name, and they
read you call 'Abdu'l Baha a noddy looper. If you don't stand by what
you wrote, change your writing style, don't blame Dermod!
> 4) Got his wife to report me to the Belfast LSA
You don't think she could have done that by herself when she read, what
- 5 times? - how Dermod would get a petrol bomb through his window if he
did what he did w/ Protestants (or was it Catholics) (or was it anyone
from Northern Ireland such as yourself, who was from NI?), really
George? She lives there, for heaven's sake!!!!! If you had a poodle
and someone was talking about firebombing your home, I'd hope your
poodle could speak up on your behalf, you pathetic whiner! Do you
really suppose I have NO IDEA WHY SHE WOULD DO THAT??? FOR GOODNESS
SAKE< GEORGE TAKE _some_ RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL THE TROUBLE YOU CAUSE
YOURSELF!
> 5) sent me two letters from his solicitor
You posted those, and he has not pursued the lawsuit, yet.
> 6) Sent a letter to AO member Pat Craig to report me to the BCNI
>
nOW WE ARE MOVING INTO THE PRESENT. hERE'S WHAT i'M THINKING OF DOING
TO HE'P OUT, SINCE YOU REALLY ARE BEGGING FOR IT. sHALL i CONTACT THE
gANGES bOYS, BUT i'LL USE _YOUR_ EMAIL ADDRESS, AND i'LL BORROW SOME OF
YOUR POOFY PHRASING WHEN YOU WERE POSTING AS THE OTHER pAUL hAMMOND?
tHE THOUGHT DOES OCCUR TO ME, AND i'VE NOTICED THAT YOU DON'T LET A
DIRTY TRICK GO UNTRIED. tHINK ABOUT IT - AND, AS I'VE SAID - take some
responsibility for all the nasty things you've done to others.
oH, HERE'S ANOTHER FUNNY NOTION WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN KICKING AROUND
IN MY HEAD (PROBABLY LOTS OF HEADS). mOST OF US HAVE FIGURED OUT YOU
NOT ONLY HAVE NOT MUCH OF A SOCIAL LIFE, BUT DIDN'T KNOW DIDLY ABOUT THE
BF AND LIKELY ONLY JOINED IT TO FIND FOLks who'll put up w/ a class A
blowhard such as yourself. We've both read your insulting and
derogatory remarks about 'Abdu'l Baha, and we've read from Buddha Gordon
that you are still hanging out with the Baha'is in the real world.
Obviously, if you'd seen such an opportunity w/ someone you didn't get
along w/ you'd already have had their worlds collide. This is one of
the big differences between an out of control fanatic, such as yourself,
and most of the people on TRB that you just don't get along with. Most
of us might see opportunities to put a hurt on others, but we don't
pursue the infliction of pain for our own perverse pleasure.
Oh sure, I can hear you wailing already about how Dermod or Susan, or
I've done something which caused you pain. These things were done, but
not simply to inflict pain on you. They were done to either improve
your performance, or to protect the BF from your unruliness.
>
> In the mean time after all this whinging by ( the so called great
> critic of the AO) to me, I stated I was going to report him (plus
> send a selected list of his nasty posts to TRB ) to his local council.
>
> Then all hell breaks loose and I am castigated as the greatest
> sectarian Prod bastard by the Waster and his henchmen and henchwomen
> on TRB.
>
> My threat to report him to his council has never been carried out
> *YET*
Though it's been a while since you've choked my inbox, or threatened to
kill someone else, you really don't change.
I still remember how you'd tell Paul what to do, threatening to spam me
some more if he didn't do what you say. How you'd threaten to spam
Susan's coworkers if _I_ didn't do what you said. You show a 'hostage
taker' mentality. You are an obstacle to discussion on TRB. Just half
an hour ago I was thinking to myself, as I walked the dog that you were
capable of civility, but you are a Jekyl and Hyde, and visible as such
around the world. Stop your pathetic whining, your tantrum threats, and
grow up. Or ...
Enjoy the Belfast Arts Guild!
- Pat
kohli at amritel.net
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040119005930...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already
instructed
> >to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not attained
> >to.
>
> Yeah? Can you show us the document where they do this?
Don't be impatient! The plot is unfolding and all will be revealed in the
Final Act!
Susan Maneck
>instructed
>> >to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not attained
>> >to.
>>
>> Yeah? Can you show us the document where they do this?
>
>
>Don't be impatient! The plot is unfolding and all will be revealed in the
>Final Act!
Waiting is.
Dermod Ryder
> >> >Hardly - the BCNI acts on instructions and they have been already
> >instructed
> >> >to see me as "spiritually corrosive" - an accolade thou hast not
attained
> >> >to.
> >>
> >> Yeah? Can you show us the document where they do this?
> >
> >
> >Don't be impatient! The plot is unfolding and all will be revealed in
the
> >Final Act!
>
> Waiting is.
Over! I've altered the shooting schedule!
Dermod Ryder
> >> Does Kohli and Manic approve of this discription? After all they are
> >> your BIGS friends? RP
> >
> >Have you seen or discerned their disputing this?
>
> Nope, I don't think they are credible, hard-hitting or accurate. But they
are
> sometimes funny. And George doesn't even have that going for him.
You've changed your tune ... after telling us that BNW inspired the Loonies
to contemplate legal action. I think that entitles me to "credible, hard
hitting and accurate" laurels at the very least.
Dermod Ryder
> > According to them I am more morally evil and "spiritually
> >> corrosive" to the Bahai in Norn Ireland than you ever were or ever
> >> will be.
>
> You delude yourself. . Dermod might want to make a big deal about your
> attending Baha'i meetings there but Pat and I couldn't give a flip. You
are
> not spiritually corrosive, you are just an idiotic, annoying jerk.
Geez Splasher - this has been a hard tough day for you. Where I have
attained to the ultimate accolade of the spiritually corrosive ... you
haven't! And darker days lie ahead!
Susan Maneck
>to contemplate legal action. I think that entitles me to "credible, hard
>hitting and accurate" laurels at the very least.
Nooo. If it were all true, they'd have no case.
Dermod Ryder
> more snitching, squirming and whimping and whinging to the AO than
> both you and Maneck put together have ever done.
>
> This is what I know he has done .
>
> 1) Telephoned ABM Denis Coyle and a number of other AO members.
Just Coyle.
>
> 2) sent letters to IFF
Yup!
>
> 3) sent his wife with a list of downloaded TRB posts to read to a
> number of her bahai friends.
No! She did that of her own volition.
>
> 4) Got his wife to report me to the Belfast LSA
No! She did that of her own volition
> 5) sent me two letters from his solicitor
Yup!
> 6) Sent a letter to AO member Pat Craig to report me to the BCNI
At the request of my wife.
> In the mean time after all this whinging by ( the so called great
> critic of the AO) to me, I stated I was going to report him (plus
> send a selected list of his nasty posts to TRB ) to his local council.
>
> Then all hell breaks loose and I am castigated as the greatest
> sectarian Prod bastard by the Waster and his henchmen and henchwomen
> on TRB.
>
> My threat to report him to his council has never been carried out
> *YET*
So you finally admit to having made a threat.
Susan Maneck
>Geez Splasher - this has been a hard tough day for you. Where I have
>attained to the ultimate accolade of the spiritually corrosive ... you
>haven't! And darker days lie ahead!
Pssst. They will probably still let you attend a Baha'i meeting. At least if
you promise to behave.
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 19/1/04 9:37 pm:
>
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040119133135...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>>> According to them I am more morally evil and "spiritually
>>>> corrosive" to the Bahai in Norn Ireland than you ever were or
ever
>>>> will be.
>>
>> You delude yourself. . Dermod might want to make a big deal about
your
>> attending Baha'i meetings there but Pat and I couldn't give a
flip. You
> are
>> not spiritually corrosive, you are just an idiotic, annoying jerk.
>
> Geez Splasher - this has been a hard tough day for you. Where I have
> attained to the ultimate accolade of the spiritually corrosive ... you
> haven't! And darker days lie ahead!
Yeah, maybe her dreams of you will turn into nightmares....RP
>
>
reli...@yahoo.com
m...@privacy.net wrote on 19/1/04 9:44 pm:
> <reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a38fb763.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> This guy who you say has been a wonderful critic of the AO has
done
>> more snitching, squirming and whimping and whinging to the AO than
>> both you and Maneck put together have ever done.
>>
>> This is what I know he has done .
>>
>> 1) Telephoned ABM Denis Coyle and a number of other AO members.
>
> Just Coyle.
>
>>
>> 2) sent letters to IFF
>
> Yup!
>
>>
>> 3) sent his wife with a list of downloaded TRB posts to read to a
>> number of her bahai friends.
>
> No! She did that of her own volition.
So she just downloaded all my posts and cut out any nasty bits of your
own while you had a cup of tea I suppose. Yeah tell that one to the
marines.
>
>>
>> 4) Got his wife to report me to the Belfast LSA
>
> No! She did that of her own volition
Same as above, tell it to the marines.
>
>> 5) sent me two letters from his solicitor
>
> Yup!
>
>> 6) Sent a letter to AO member Pat Craig to report me to the BCNI
>
> At the request of my wife.
Why did your wife choose PC instead of one of the other members? Did
she know that the two P's on the council were out for my guts because
I had reported them and the whole Belfast LSA ( 9 mts previous) to the
ABM for protection and the BCNI (regards a womens rights issue) for
trying to set up a kangaroo court over a divorce case involving a
very rich Bahai his son and his daughter-in-law.. The rich Bahai is
also the buddy and business associate with a number of rich Persian
males plus pals with the NSA member who wrote me the letter ordering
me off TRB. The whole setup stunk like hell. I was hoping to hang on
untill this was over before resigning. But I had no choice when I got
the letter, after Kohli and Maneck reported me to the NSA. My neck
was on the platter so I had to go. I was the only Bahai out of the
community's 35 members who stood up for the lndian girl who knew
little about UK civil law. The majority (5 members) of LSA were
hoping to hammer.her into submission she was at fault in the marriage.
All the rest kept quiet out of fear. Its a complicated story The girl
won her case through the civil court. But the settlement is yet to be
paid according to law. So I dont want to say much more.
>> In the mean time after all this whinging by ( the so called great
>> critic of the AO) to me, I stated I was going to report him (plus
>> send a selected list of his nasty posts to TRB ) to his local
council.
>>
>> Then all hell breaks loose and I am castigated as the greatest
>> sectarian Prod bastard by the Waster and his henchmen and
henchwomen
>> on TRB.
>>
>> My threat to report him to his council has never been carried out
>> *YET*
>
> So you finally admit to having made a threat.
Did I not send a post to TRB saying I was going to download all your
naughty posts on TRB and send them to the council. What more proof do
you need?
>
>
Dermod Ryder
> >after telling us that BNW inspired the Loonies
> >to contemplate legal action. I think that entitles me to "credible, hard
> >hitting and accurate" laurels at the very least.
>
> Nooo. If it were all true, they'd have no case.
And I'd get me laurels!
Dermod Ryder
> >
> >Geez Splasher - this has been a hard tough day for you. Where I have
> >attained to the ultimate accolade of the spiritually corrosive ... you
> >haven't! And darker days lie ahead!
>
> Pssst. They will probably still let you attend a Baha'i meeting. At least
if
> you promise to behave.
Even darker days than I imagined lie ahead!
Paul Hammond
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 19/1/04 2:18 am:
>
> > Dermod doesn't see his work in caring for his daughter as
> > a waste - you already alienated everyone, even Dermod's
> > opponents such as Susan, with that one, back the first
> > time you tried this tack. In fact, Dermod probably
> > doesn't even see his efforts in that direction as "work"
> > - it's one of the things that marks him out as a decent,
> > sincere human being.
> >
> > Dermod, unlike yourself, does not have a psychological need
> > to justify himself by ranting at people on the net.
> >
> > Are you REALLY that insecure??
>
> The waster shut his loud foul mouth ranting and raving and returned to
> become a more *HUMAN* person
I haven't noticed that Dermod has shut his mouth. Have you
been listening to Cal's pixies or something??
>
> You can rant away as much as you want Hamhead it does not bother me
> infact that is just what the AO want you to do so as to keep up your
> AO mole front.
>
> RP
>
I don't have the same insecurities as you, so my identity
doesn't depend on calling someone else a "waster" and
proving that I am a worm.
Did you get that yet?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> at sma...@aol.com wrote on 19/1/04 6:31 pm:
>
> > You are not spiritually corrosive, you are just an idiotic, annoying jerk.
>
> So you dispise lGeorge who you consider is just an idiotic, annoying
> jerk, yet you are now playing pals with Dermod another ex bahai who
> you once considered spirtually corrosive plus he was not human unless
> he talked about the doddlebug. Well well well, times they are a
> changing.
>
> signed idiotic, annoying jerk
>
You're also a stupid git. Don't forget that now!
Happy to help,
Palu HamHead
Susan Maneck
>> Pssst. They will probably still let you attend a Baha'i meeting. At least
>if
>> you promise to behave.
>
>
>Even darker days than I imagined lie ahead!
LOL
Dermod Ryder
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.0401...@posting.google.com...
> >> 3) sent his wife with a list of downloaded TRB posts to read to a
> >> number of her bahai friends.
> >
> > No! She did that of her own volition.
>
> So she just downloaded all my posts and cut out any nasty bits of your
> own while you had a cup of tea I suppose. Yeah tell that one to the
> marines.
She downloaded the posts. I think most of my nasty bits were still in there
for you never delete what you're responding to.
> >
> >>
> >> 4) Got his wife to report me to the Belfast LSA
> >
> > No! She did that of her own volition
>
> Same as above, tell it to the marines.
Would you like me to ak her to call you to explain her own POV?
> >> 5) sent me two letters from his solicitor
> >
> > Yup!
> >
> >> 6) Sent a letter to AO member Pat Craig to report me to the BCNI
> >
> > At the request of my wife.
>
> Why did your wife choose PC instead of one of the other members? Did
> she know that the two P's on the council were out for my guts because
> I had reported them and the whole Belfast LSA ( 9 mts previous) to the
> ABM for protection and the BCNI (regards a womens rights issue) for
> trying to set up a kangaroo court over a divorce case involving a
> very rich Bahai his son and his daughter-in-law..
One of the things that bonds the critics is that they share information
among themselves - useful information that can be used to make a point.
When you tried to join them, you did not do that - you contributed NOTHING
by way of additional material which could have formed the substance of a
concerted critique.
Despite my offers to you to resolve our differences, you sat on your fat
arse and did nothing towards achieving that. Indeed you persisted with your
shameless attempts to blacken me and assassinate my charecter. You have
lied to me off-list on more than one occasion. You betrayed and denounced
the one person who came hereabouts to defend you. Now at the heels of the
hunt you come in with a cock and bull story about your heroic efforts in an
alleged kangaroo court case in Belfast. How could my wife or I know you
were being hunted by the BCNI? You never told us. Like I said, you brought
nothing of worth or substance to this forum.
Even tonight when I post a letter from the Dept of the Secretariat, in plops
Splasher with his theory that I made it up. Get a life - I'm not as stupid
as you. I don't forge letters the way that you do - those so juicy alleged
off-list letters twixt you and Susan Maneck. Do you remember Splasher when
you told me that they no longer existed, that you had lost them when your
old computer broke down? Miraculously they apparently re-appear but who can
believe they are genuine? Nobody with an ounce of sense will take your word
for it that they're genuine for, if they are, you are still a liar for
stating that they no longer existed.
Everybody around here regards you as a joke and a jerk and frankly you're
not worth any more of my effort. Now go away, little man and spare your
further blushes around here. And don't even think of threatening me or mine
ever again!
Susan Maneck
>off-list letters twixt you and Susan Maneck.
Uh, Dermod, I never denied those letters. In fact, I think I posted the things
George said that I was responding to.
Rod
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > in article bu9vl4$eu80a$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> > kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
> >
> >
> > Rod has your debating technique on TRB figured out, thats for sure,
> > and he is a Baha'i. Had you ever thought of answering his post ?
> >
>
> Yes I had.
Cut'n'paste evasion/ bullshit and total failure to respond to the
points made does not constitute "answer".
> Over the past several months I've pointed out to him that
> he'd been hounding Susan
Do try to keep up with the cover story Kohli...According to Manic
I have committed the criminal act of "cyberstalking". This little
accessory accusation to her prior anti faith faction remark was
presented on Baha'i Discuss. No substantiation, no justification
just the open allegation of criminal activity.
Care to take a stab in the dark as to how many good and decent Baha'is
stepped up to challenge or even question the allegation?
No....I didn't think so.....you guttless lying shitbag....stay
curled up in the fatal position under your cowards killfile.
>for something she had not said,
You cut and ignore all evidence-
Susan confirmed her depiction of me as a member of an anti Baha'i
faction-
Me-
">From the moment I began posting on Bnet >I was accused by my fellow
Baha'is >of being a member of the mythical >'Talisman Invasion' -A
covert consortium >of heretic liberal Baha'is"
Susan-
"Sorry, Rod. I figure anyone who uses that much empty rhetoric
must be."
Because of my "empty rhetoric" I "must be" a member of "a
covert consortium of heretic liberal Baha'is"...part of the
"Talisman Invasion"...the "enemies of the Faith" who attempted
to take over Bnet.
You remember what happened at Bnet Kohli? You said Susans behaviour
was the same......"Not good".
"Is this what we do to others"?.....Of course it is arsewhipe...you
love it.
Spin it,white wash it, hang it out on a limb to dry...Manic's
allegations
that I am a member of an anti Baha'i group have been crystal clear and
consistent.
> something he says she intended to say.
Something YOU saw her say, rebuked her for it and subsequently attempt
a tripple pike and backflip which only leads to your being wedged up
your own arse.
I'm sick to the core with your lies and double standards...you'r a
perfect
mirror of all that is false and abhorent within the Baha'i
community...you,
Manic, Joplin, Pith, Dust your all the fucking same...you delight in
bullshit
allegations- claiming they didn't mean what they said- turning a blind
eye
to abuse and all the while pretending there is something 'spiritual'
about
your lies and equivocation.
Fuck ya.
Whatever community you claim to be a part off and represent I want
nothing
to do with...do us all a favour and report me for my foul and unseemly
language
...don't forget to pass on Susans "cyberstalking" allegation and
"violator of Covenant" innuendo.
If your a Baha'i Kolhi I'M NOT.
If Susan is a Baha'i I'M NOT.
Whatever you creeps are a part of I want no affiliation with.
It's bad enough having to share a planet with you...
any further association is intolerable.
So do your duty arsehole...report me to the AO.....perhaps they will
send a couple of lads round for another "social visit"?
Rod.
> > From: Rod <kas...@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
> >
> > 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=8ccded73.030914
> > 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..
> >
> >
> >>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=8ccded73.0302132249.
> > 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-
> >
> >
> >>"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=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.
> >
> >
> >>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=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.
> >
> >
> >>>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.
Rod
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > in article bubg1e$fr5ca$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> > kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 2:20 pm:
> >
> >>reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>in article bu9vl4$eu80a$1...@ID-75487.news.uni-berlin.de, kohli at
> >>>kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 17/1/04 12:34 am:
> > 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.
Cuting and ignoring the central points/questions- repeating bullshit
and hitting 'post message' does not mean you have "responded".
It just means you have made noise and 'evaded'.
Snip
> > From what Rod has correctly described you. Had you gone on for further
> > education I doubt if you would have lasted a fresher's year before
> > being kicked out on your butt for telling all the lecturers what to
> > do.
>
> Hilarious, George. Given your inability to distinguish fictional
> entertainment from a statement of the author's own beliefs, I don't see
> you are in a position to perform intellectual assessments on people.
And what heights of discernment, truth and accuracy might we expect from
the well educated Baha'i?
Ass Prof Manic says I'm a "cyberstalker".
An open allegation of criminal activity against a fellow community member.
No substantiation, no justification, no semblance of comprehention of
ethical, moral or truthfull claim.
I say she is a slimy lying bitch.
Given your inability to distinguish your arse from your elbow I expect
you will have some insightfull and entertaining spin on how the "author"
of this most recent slander actualy expressed loving Baha'i fellowship.
Whatever it is that you and Manic are a part of...no decent person would
wish any association with.
Rod.
Paul Hammond
<whinging crap snipped>
> >>
> >> Then all hell breaks loose and I am castigated as the greatest
> >> sectarian Prod bastard by the Waster and his henchmen and
> henchwomen
> >> on TRB.
> >>
> >> My threat to report him to his council has never been carried out
> >> *YET*
> >
> > So you finally admit to having made a threat.
>
> Did I not send a post to TRB saying I was going to download all your
> naughty posts on TRB and send them to the council. What more proof do
> you need?
> >
> >
Oh, Splasher - we *all* see you *making* these threats. It's
just that this is the first time you've ever admitted to
making them.
Most of the time you just pretend you are a poor
misunderstood martyr who we've all been ganging up on
for no good reason.
Paul
Freethought110
>
> Whatever community you claim to be a part off and represent I want
> nothing
> to do with...do us all a favour and report me for my foul and unseemly
> language
> ...don't forget to pass on Susans "cyberstalking" allegation and
> "violator of Covenant" innuendo.
>
> If your a Baha'i Kolhi I'M NOT.
> If Susan is a Baha'i I'M NOT.
> Whatever you creeps are a part of I want no affiliation with.
>
> It's bad enough having to share a planet with you...
> any further association is intolerable.
May the All-High heap infinite praises and blessings upon you, Rod,
upon your better half and your children and their chidren and their
childrens children and their childrens children 2001 generations into
the future! Amen!
reli...@yahoo.com
Freethought110 at freetho...@yahoo.com wrote on 21/1/04 1:19 am:
I second, third, fourth, and fifth that. RP
Dermod Ryder
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Whatever community you claim to be a part off and represent I want
> nothing
> to do with...do us all a favour and report me for my foul and unseemly
> language
> ...don't forget to pass on Susans "cyberstalking" allegation and
> "violator of Covenant" innuendo.
>
> If your a Baha'i Kolhi I'M NOT.
> If Susan is a Baha'i I'M NOT.
> Whatever you creeps are a part of I want no affiliation with.
>
> It's bad enough having to share a planet with you...
> any further association is intolerable.
>
> So do your duty arsehole...report me to the AO.....perhaps they will
> send a couple of lads round for another "social visit"?
Is this your formal withdrawal, Rod? If so, thrice welcome to the land of
the liberated and free of the slime of A Onionism.
If not, I really would not want to be the any of the lads sent for a social
visit. I've got a couple of "L" shaped pokers I could be persuaded to lend
you ... and the lads. Quite easy to insert, especially when red hot, but
damned difficult to retrieve especially once they've cooled.
Rod
Dermod Ryder <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bukoj1$j1hlr$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > send a couple of lads round for another "social visit"?
>
> Is this your formal withdrawal, Rod?
Hell no Dermod...a "formal withdrawal" involves- "Whhhhooooa! Baby!"
and swinging back on the chandelier.....oh.....you mean from the faith?
No also, I retain a card and a great deal of curiosity ;-)
> If not, I really would not want to be the any of the lads sent for a
social
> visit.
;-) Indeed Dermod...there will be no chockie bickies and cups of tea next
time round.
But should there be a next time? Have I already been "Counselled"? I
did attend an Institute some time ago...was that designated for me?
Or perhaps brother Steve Marshall? He was not there...but should
that count? Perhaps the "social visit" was the "Counselling"? Or perhaps
it took place when they patted my dog? Or went to my toilet? "All
embracing general loving Counselling" is such a subtle art...it rained
yesterday....could that have been it?
> I've got a couple of "L" shaped pokers I could be persuaded to lend
> you ... and the lads. Quite easy to insert, especially when red hot, but
> damned difficult to retrieve especially once they've cooled.
Oh Dermod.....You are generous to a fault ;-)
Thank you....but no....this is rural Victoria....and we are quite
conservative
in our hospitality.
You don't have a twelve volt battery do you?
Rod.
Dermod Ryder
> > I've got a couple of "L" shaped pokers I could be persuaded to lend
> > you ... and the lads. Quite easy to insert, especially when red hot,
but
> > damned difficult to retrieve especially once they've cooled.
>
> Oh Dermod.....You are generous to a fault ;-)
It's my biggest fault and there's not a thing I can do about it.
> Thank you....but no....this is rural Victoria....and we are quite
> conservative
> in our hospitality.
>
> You don't have a twelve volt battery do you?
Yup! You want it shipped? With/without the electrodes?
>
> Rod.
>
>
mult...@aros.net
I Grok