Libeling Pat Kohli on SourceWatch.org
All Bad
something, dimes will get you dollars, W is talking about one of his own
past times, and projecting it on his current target.
AB: In the past month or so, W has posted the Sourcewatch article that he
wrote on Pat Kohli to TRB.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/search?q=Sourcewatch+Pat+Kohli&start=0&scoring=d&
The sense I have is that in his own special way he is trying to intimidate
posters here. I could be wrong.
AB: One of the things that came up recently at Sourcewatch.org was the
accusation of libeling. This got moved over from the basic page to the
discussion. W. Azal, says that libeling is a fact.
WA: Hi Diane, the two major references in this piece are news articles.
Second, we can substantiate and furnish prima facie evidence of the
libel/defamation charges. I understand your position that there could
be a liability issue with SW in inclusion of this material, but you
also should be aware that these are statements of fact.
AB: W also starts to hint to his new Sourcewatch.org discussion partners
about the bahooooooveyeyeyeyeyey IT committee HQ (Bitch-Q).
WA: That stated, I'd like to address something else here. We went through
a similar situation with Bob when this article first went up. After
another editor weighed in, and I suggested Bob might have been
contacted by these people and lobbied, Bob backed off. It appears that
everytime I weigh on something with this article you guys get nervous,
so I'd like to ask you, have you and SW been lobbied regarding this
article?
AB: Yeah, baaaaby, the Bitch-Q is getting in the way of W! His life is
being ruined by the Bitch-Q. They exist only to ruin his life! But what
about the birth of the Bitch-Q? We can use the usenet archive to study the
birth of the Bitch-Q, now strangling the life out of W as he tries to fill
the void of his jobless and not yet retired, drug dealing existence. Right
here on TRB, way back when W was still Nima Hazini, but still believing he
was THE ONE, for those of you who forgot, or were not following TRB in
DEC02-Jan03.
NH(W-2003): Mark Foster has admitted in the past that the presence of
various
individuals on the internet contains a financial dividend of up to
$10,000.00 + per annum by the satanic AO cult to its various online
agents. Susan Maniac has never explicitly denied that she recieves
financial assistance for her internet presence, and neither has Pat
Kohli. Obviously if these people had real jobs with real lives they
would not be continually wheeled out to these sites to respond to
every single post posted by any percieved given enemy of their
corrupt, sleazy, satanic organization and cult which puts Scientology
to shame.
Nima Hazini, DEC2002
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/fe8c74a12c81ee48
NH (W-2003): Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that
Kholi is
a paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on the
internet to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It
is an even better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My
Revelation) is paid by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster
who admitted the monies that he was being paid by the baha'i cult
administration. These glaze eyed cultists speak with forked tongues
and have the gall to talk about a credibility which they themselves do
even not possess nor would they know what credibility was, since they
have sold their souls collectively to the accursed Satan of
materialism and Big LIE. Thus, their whole aim when uncomfortable
facts are brought to them is to smear and call into question the
integrities of those who dare question the flimsy foundations of their
dangerous, malicious cult, rather than the issues.
Nima Hazini, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0&cd=US&hl=en?pli=1
AB: If you scroll down you see Corax pointing out he does not post to
usenet for $10K per year and a rejection of some of Nima's recent
activities. Of course you see the hypocrisy of Nima accusing contributors
of being professional puppets and then projecting about attacks on
credibility - even though he is still posting as THE ONE!
AB: Shortly after, who should appear to corroborate, or dispute the alleged
confession of Mark Foster? Mark Foster, of course!
MF: Nima, I never told you that I had received
$10,000, a portion of that amount, or any other
amount from the Baha'i Administration. It is
simply not true.
MArk Foster, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1294ab6b0cddff34
AB: So, even though W's original 'evidence' of the Bitch-Q was his
imaginings, he's continued to accuse and accuse for six years. Last month
he posted here his demand that the UHJ tell him he is wrong about the
Bitch-Q. At least, I think he did that. I was trying to remember what the
day of ignominy was about. I guess if he did't send the UHJ a letter or an
email, but just posted here, and got a response, that would imply that at
least there is an informal conduit, but I guess that did not happen either.
AB: So, with no evidence, for _years_, even changes in personality from THE
ONE to just a person, from Nima to W, the lie remains the same. But he says
that others are libeling on TRB.
AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his sidekick,
Atomiser.
- All Bad
Ruhaniya
On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military | War/peace
Ruhaniya
wrote:
> AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his sidekick,
> Atomiser.
The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.
And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
G'head, sue me!
W
Ruhaniya
paha...@onetel.net.uk
I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever
logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.
The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi
article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.
So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you
to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?
Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?
Paul
All Bad
"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:767dcc2d-04d3-4926...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> sidekick,
> Atomiser.
WA: The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.
WA: And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
WA: G'head, sue me!
AB: Dear fantasist, you got any money? Everything I see from you is
consistent with a layabout fantasist who might be picking up a grand a month
from the Baha'i AO for acting like an internet kook of a disgruntled
ex-Baha'i. Star* says you have no money. Ali Duran said you were a sponge.
I don't have good money to go after bad money.
AB: What I said up above is that the wherever you go, there you are. You
bring your meanness and paranoia with you, and after you are somewhere you
start to get comfortable and like gaz after beer and beans, it just comes
out, and people smell it.
AB: So, where is your libel stuff? Where did I or Pat libel you, or anyone
else? BTW, May as Bill does not count, because a) I have respect for Bill
Ayers, b) it was obviously incredible that May would just happen to be Bill
A. and c) it was an example of guilt by association which May was trying to
practice.
AB: BTW, you are stuttering.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/46ef078931001733
- All Bad
- All Bad
- All Bad
All Bad
Dear fantasist, you got any money? Everything I see from you is
consistent with a layabout fantasist who might be picking up a grand a month
from the Baha'i AO for acting like an internet kook of a disgruntled
ex-Baha'i. Star* says you have no money. Ali Duran said you were a sponge.
I don't have good money to go after bad money.
What I said up above is that the wherever you go, there you are. You
bring your meanness and paranoia with you, and after you are somewhere you
start to get comfortable and like gaz after beer and beans, it just comes
out, and people smell it.
So, where is your libel stuff? Where did I or Pat libel you, or anyone
else? BTW, May as Bill does not count, because a) I have respect for Bill
Ayers, b) it was obviously incredible that May would just happen to be Bill
A. and c) it was an example of guilt by association which May was trying to
practice.
AB: BTW, you are stuttering.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/9bdf78b7387e0601
AB: Now you got me stuttering! Oh W, I'm so afraid of your voodoo powers!
- All Bad
- All Bad
- All Bad
- All Bad
All Bad
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3f84b246-af5c-4e42...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 1:41 pm, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> > sidekick,
> > Atomiser.
>
> The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
> lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
> KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
> whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
> living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
> this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
> get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
> or aren't a hack.
>
> And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
> defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
>
> G'head, sue me!
>
> W
"The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to."
PH: I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever
logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.
PH: The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi
article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.
PH: So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you
to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?
PH: Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?
AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime makes
it worse?
- All Bad
All Bad
> On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> > sidekick,
> > Atomiser.
>
> The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
> lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
> KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
> whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
> living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
> this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
> get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
> or aren't a hack.
>
> And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
> defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
>
> G'head, sue me!
>
> W
"The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to."
PH: I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever
logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.
PH: The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi
article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.
PH: So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you
to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?
PH: Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he
thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
trademark infringement I wonder?
Ruhaniya
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbf36a59-84eb-4f39...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly the
subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if you
are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he trusts
me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked out
opinion.
MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he
thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered States"
I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't help but
wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing in the
movie. Do you know?
MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
Daime is good.
organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
trademark infringement I wonder?
AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
will tell you, I am not the UHJ. Ask them your questions yourself.
- All Bad
http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly
affiliated with the Baha'i organization.
>
> MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> Daime is good.
>
> organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
> will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
makes things even more complicated for you.
> Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> - All Bad
>
> http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be
able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in
the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Interesting move, May.
Aor
Very interesting indeed, and one you don't have a hope to answer.
W
maybe...@gmail.com
Especially interesting considering that All Bad/Pat Kohli has answered
numerous questions regarding his involvement with the Navy AS PAT
KOHLI, as well as having cited his pursuits in assisting with literacy
and race relations programs- which are both externally verifiable
activities undertaken by Pat Kohli.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d
Now, either poster All Bad is Pat Kohli, or user All Bad is committing
a level of identity fraud by posting and addressing personal questions
as Pat Kohli, or multiple people are posting as Pat Kohli/All Bad,
including Pat Kohli himself- hence answering to certain issues raised
about his career with the military and involvements with other
organizations. So if Pat Kohli now realizes that certain of his
actions, including his speedy support for use Mash_ghasem's claims
that Wahid Azal is acting as an agent of the IRI, are in fact legally
actionable, he may well be attempting to distance himself from the
posts he has made here as All Bad. Unfortunately, this is a not a
winning situation, as denying his identity as All Bad not only raises
the previous issues of fraudulent posting activity by a key Baha'i
member of this board, but further establishes collusion amongst other
members of the board such as yourself, Paul. Consequently, the
existence of the internet committee you keep denying looks more likely
by the day, and at the very least, these factors raise SERIOUS
questions about the activities of All Bad/Pat Kohli and any other
related posters.
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a679c0b5-bcc1-43b2...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...(snip)
>
> > AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime
> > makes
> > it worse?
>
> > - All Bad
>
> AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly the
> subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if you
> are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> trusts
> me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked out
> opinion.
>
> MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he
> thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
> AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered States"
> I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't help
> but
> wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing in
> the
> movie. Do you know?
MIA1: Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly
affiliated with the Baha'i organization.
AB: I know I don't have a Baha'i Daime drinker in my residence, so
"Obviously" is not the case. Do you know what "obvious" means, or
"resident"?
>
> MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> Daime is good.
>
> organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
> will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
MIA1: Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
AB: I felt it might be constructive to inform you that I am not the UHJ
since it seemed to me that you were communicating to me a question for the
UHJ, "Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him" In plain
English, "I would not know". I would not know because I am not the UHJ.
Hey, if you are drinking that stuff, too, please don't drink and post.
MIA1: people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
AB: What are you talking about now?
MIA1: names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
AB: What is your name?
MIA1: makes things even more complicated for you.
AB: Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.
> Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> - All Bad
>
> http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
MIA1: It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be
AB: What organization might that be? In the context of Daime, I do not
represent the DEA.
MIA1: able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused. I'll spell it out for you though.
In this context, TRB, I represent no organization. Rather emphatically, on
TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.
MIA1: from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
AB: What individual would that be? Where do they live? What have they
done? It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
the Dawning Place of the Praise of God. At first glance, this looks really
great. HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
Williamette? I did, several times.
MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in
AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about it
other than ignoring it.
MIA1: the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
AB: I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
SI.
MIA1: are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do. I suggest you
take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
interested in.
MIA1: context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
AB: The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
Dallas Cowboys. Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
similar to the ring symbol. It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
an expert in these matters.
MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.
AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.
AB: Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money, in
addition to Mark Foster. Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years. Before you believed it,
an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you believe
that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
representative of the UHJ. That is ridiculous. If you believe that I am
with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
your own gullibility. Azal is the libeler. He lied about my role in the
Gaza war. He's lied about a lot of other things. You are backing a
propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it. Are you oblivious? Are you
simply misled? You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
Azal.
- All Bad
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b218afb-e60e-4d5b...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...(snip)
>
> > > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > > the
> > > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > > you
> > > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > > trusts
> > > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > > out
> > > opinion.
>
> > > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > > he
> > > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
AB: Note, I addressed _you_ as Bill Ayers. _You_ recognized I was
addressing _you_ and _you_ responded. I doubt very much you are really Bill
Ayers, though you might be in Chicago.
> > > AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered
> > > States"
> > > I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't
> > > help but
> > > wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing
> > > in the
> > > movie. Do you know?
>
> > Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly
> > affiliated with the Baha'i organization.
>
> > > MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> > > AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here
> > > that
> > > Daime is good.
>
> > > organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> > > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but
> > > I
> > > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> > Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> > thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
> > people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
> > names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
> > makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> Interesting move, May.
MIA1: Especially interesting considering that All Bad/Pat Kohli has
answered
numerous questions regarding his involvement with the Navy AS PAT
KOHLI, as well as having cited his pursuits in assisting with literacy
and race relations programs- which are both externally verifiable
activities undertaken by Pat Kohli.
AB: As I point out above, even you know when you are being addressed and
you respond and it is no proof at all of your identity. You are anonymous
and represent no organization on TRB. I get that. I can relate to it. I
can play at tripping you up, and you dodge, you stay anonymous. You can
play at tripping me up, and I dodge. But I am not confused into believing
you are Bill Ayers.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d
MIA1: Now, either poster All Bad is Pat Kohli, or user All Bad is
committing
a level of identity fraud by posting and addressing personal questions
AB: I don't think Pat Kholi is the only one who worked for the Navy, knew
some Baha'is who flew on P-3 aircraft, or was in the literacy council, or
worked on race relations, or had teenage kids, or drove a car, or saw a
dentist.
MIA1: as Pat Kohli, or multiple people are posting as Pat Kohli/All Bad,
including Pat Kohli himself- hence answering to certain issues raised
about his career with the military and involvements with other
organizations. So if Pat Kohli now realizes that certain of his
actions, including his speedy support for use Mash_ghasem's claims
that Wahid Azal is acting as an agent of the IRI, are in fact legally
actionable, he may well be attempting to distance himself from the
posts he has made here as All Bad. Unfortunately, this is a not a
AB: The argument that Azal is paid by the IRI is a far more likely
explanation for his activities, than what it foiled for, the baseless
allegation that Paul Hammond, Susan Maneck, Mark Foster and others are paid
by the AO to propagandize on the internet. Azal at least spouts the party
line on the bahooooveyeyeys.
MIA1: winning situation, as denying his identity as All Bad not only raises
AB: Bill, you are maligning me in ways I thought were impossible. I don't
confirm any real identity, but on TRB, I am All Bad.
MIA1: the previous issues of fraudulent posting activity by a key Baha'i
member of this board, but further establishes collusion amongst other
members of the board such as yourself, Paul. Consequently, the
AB: So, this is all an elaborate windup about Azal's multiple handles, and
email addresses and the Hidden_Treasure meat puppet. So, you are showing a
sense of humor, now, to distance yourself from the Imperial Hazini?
MIA1: existence of the internet committee you keep denying looks more
likely
by the day, and at the very least, these factors raise SERIOUS
questions about the activities of All Bad/Pat Kohli and any other
related posters.
AB: Don't drink and post. It comes out sideways.
AB: What about the libeling?
- All Bad
All Bad
"Aor" <hura...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b2b0c77-369e-46c2...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...(snip)
>
> > > > AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime
> > > > makes
> > > > it worse?
>
> > > > - All Bad
>
> > > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > > the
> > > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > > you
> > > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > > trusts
> > > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > > out
> > > opinion.
>
> > > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > > he
> > > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
> > > AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered
> > > States"
>
> > > organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> > > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but
> > > I
> > > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> > Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> > thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
> > people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
> > names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
> > makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> Interesting move, May.- Hide quoted text -
WA: Very interesting indeed, and one you don't have a hope to answer.
AB: Get your tomahawk out. You don't want to miss out on some more
scalping!
- All Bad
W
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm talking about you attempting to caste doubt on your identity as
Pat Kohli. You've answered questions as Pat Kohli, so again, either
you are Pat Kohli, you aren't Pat Kohli (which is serious in itself),
or there is more than one person posting from your handle 'All Bad'.
All of the above represent separate, yet equally tricky scenarios for
you.
>
> MIA1: names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
>
> AB: What is your name?
>
> MIA1: makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> AB: Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
> maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.
>
> > Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> > - All Bad
>
> >http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> MIA1: It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be
>
> AB: What organization might that be? In the context of Daime, I do not
> represent the DEA.
>
> MIA1: able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
> such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
>
> AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused. I'll spell it out for you though.
> In this context, TRB, I represent no organization. Rather emphatically, on
> TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.
>
> MIA1: from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
>
> AB: What individual would that be?
This individual here, and the organization he represents:
http://www.aurorabaha.org/firealtar
The Keeper of the Fire Altar is Francis Siete Truenos, a mestiso
(Basque, Taino & Lebanese) Curandero and Vegetalista born in what is
today the Dominican Republic (Quisqueya/Hispaniola).
> Where do they live? What have they
> done? It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
> the Dawning Place of the Praise of God. At first glance, this looks really
> great. HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
> Williamette? I did, several times.
So you don't see any possible confusion with the use of Baha'i symbols
and terminology? How then could you support a case against the
Orthodox Baha'is? Furthermore, if the sentiments and activities
detailed on this site appear agreeable to you (including the
sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
>
> MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in
>
> AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about it
> other than ignoring it.
Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
> MIA1: the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
> Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
>
> AB: I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
> SI.
>
> MIA1: are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
> United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
> individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
> especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
>
> AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do. I suggest you
> take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
> interested in.
>
> MIA1: context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
> employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
>
> AB: The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
> Dallas Cowboys. Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
> similar to the ring symbol. It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
> an expert in these matters.
The symbol used here is the Baha'i Greatest Name, not the five pointed
star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of
the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.
http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
> MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
> the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
> bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
> expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.
>
> AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
> nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.
I presume that name because you have answered questions directed
towards Pat Kohli as Pat Kohli.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d
So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a
level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.
>
> AB: Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
> told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
> internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money, in
> addition to Mark Foster. Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
> Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years. Before you believed it,
> an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you believe
> that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
> the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
> you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
> representative of the UHJ. That is ridiculous. If you believe that I am
> with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
> your own gullibility. Azal is the libeler. He lied about my role in the
> Gaza war. He's lied about a lot of other things. You are backing a
> propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it. Are you oblivious? Are you
> simply misled? You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
> Azal.
>
> - All Bad
You should know by now that I see through your attempts to caste Wahid
Azal in a particular light, and to curb my criticism of the Haifan
Baha'i organization by employing the tactics you do. You'll probably
disagree as you have above, but I have a good eye for these things and
can clearly perceive certain things for myself. Right now, your
attempts to distance yourself from your online identity are failing
miserably, and have now created some very serious problems.
All Bad
Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to Sourcewatch.org.
There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB. This is TRB.
Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB? Has W shown you examples
of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bada9ecd-effc-449f...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 8, 12:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a679c0b5-bcc1-43b2...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 8:56 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
(snip)
>
> > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > the
> > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > you
> > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > trusts
> > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > out
> > opinion.
>
> > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > he
> > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
AB: Note: I addressed you as Bill Ayers. You answered. This does not
make you Bill Ayers, as far as I am concerned. Does this make you Bill
Ayers as far as you are concerned? It looks to me like you are saying it
would. Be consistent.
>
(snip)
>
>
> > MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> > AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> > Daime is good.
>
> > MIA1: organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him
> > for
> > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
> > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> MIA1: Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
>
> AB: I felt it might be constructive to inform you that I am not the UHJ
> since it seemed to me that you were communicating to me a question for the
> UHJ, "Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him" In plain
> English, "I would not know". I would not know because I am not the UHJ.
> Hey, if you are drinking that stuff, too, please don't drink and post.
>
> MIA1: people posting from your account, and you've been posting under
> false
>
> AB: What are you talking about now?
MIA1: I'm talking about you attempting to caste doubt on your identity as
Pat Kohli.
AB: Nonsense. I sign off my messages as All Bad. I'm not claiming to be
Pat Kohli. The fact that I respond when I believe I am being addressed is
nothing more than what you do when I address you as Bill Ayers.
MIA1: You've answered questions as Pat Kohli, so again, either
you are Pat Kohli, you aren't Pat Kohli (which is serious in itself),
AB: You are not Bill Ayers, yet you answer questions addressed to him.
This is usenet, not email. Everyone can read and anyone can right, given
internet connectivity and software and no concerns on quality.
MIA1: or there is more than one person posting from your handle 'All Bad'.
All of the above represent separate, yet equally tricky scenarios for
you.
>
> MIA1: names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and
> actually
>
> AB: What is your name?
>
> MIA1: makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> AB: Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
> maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.
>
> > Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> > - All Bad
>
> >http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> MIA1: It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should
> be
>
> AB: What organization might that be? In the context of Daime, I do not
> represent the DEA.
>
> MIA1: able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
> such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
>
> AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused. I'll spell it out for you though.
> In this context, TRB, I represent no organization. Rather emphatically, on
> TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.
>
> MIA1: from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
>
> AB: What individual would that be?
MIA1: This individual here, and the organization he represents:
http://www.aurorabaha.org/firealtar
MIA1: The Keeper of the Fire Altar is Francis Siete Truenos, a mestiso
(Basque, Taino & Lebanese) Curandero and Vegetalista born in what is
today the Dominican Republic (Quisqueya/Hispaniola).
AB: This is where A-Rod;s cousin gets the juice. Does he still live there?
> Where do they live? What have they
> done? It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
> the Dawning Place of the Praise of God. At first glance, this looks really
> great. HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
> Williamette? I did, several times.
MIA1: So you don't see any possible confusion with the use of Baha'i symbols
and terminology? How then could you support a case against the
AB: I'm sure someone could get confused. I have no serious opinion on the
viability of litigation or the need of it.
MIA1: Orthodox Baha'is? Furthermore, if the sentiments and activities
AB: I post on TRB. I don't claim to determine legal strategy; that would
be something Wahid would do.
MIA1: detailed on this site appear agreeable to you (including the
AB: You referred me to the covenant page and I looked at. I did not look at
the site, or I might have seen what's his names bio.
MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
AB: Wahid says he took Daime. Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca. I
don't make this up, like a certain user of hallucinogens.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2
>
> MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> in
>
> AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> it
> other than ignoring it.
MIA1: Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli. Clearly, I am posting as
All Bad. You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not posting
as Bill Ayers.
MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.
MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web page
that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.
MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
> MIA1: the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
> Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
>
> AB: I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
> SI.
>
> MIA1: are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
> United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
> individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
> especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
>
> AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do. I suggest you
> take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
> interested in.
>
> MIA1: context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
> employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
>
> AB: The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
> Dallas Cowboys. Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
> similar to the ring symbol. It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
> an expert in these matters.
MIA1: The symbol used here is the Baha'i Greatest Name, not the five pointed
AB: That that would be "the Greatest Name symbol". The five pointed star
remains the symbol of the Baha'i Faith, regardless of whether or not this is
well known.
http://altreligion.about.com/od/symbols/ig/Baha-i-Faith-Symbol-Gallery/Five-Pointed-Star.htm
MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of
the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.
http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.
> MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> to
> the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
> bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
> expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.
AB: You still avoid commenting on the libel, a thing you've even been party
to. Why is that?
>
> AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
> nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.
MIA1: I presume that name because you have answered questions directed
towards Pat Kohli as Pat Kohli.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d
MIA1: So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a
level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.
AB: Yet I don't presume you are the terrorist Bill Ayers, even though you
would pass by the test of answering questions put to that name.
>
> AB: Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
> told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
> internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money,
> in
> addition to Mark Foster. Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
> Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years. Before you believed
> it,
> an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you
> believe
> that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
> the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
> you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
> representative of the UHJ. That is ridiculous. If you believe that I am
> with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
> your own gullibility. Azal is the libeler. He lied about my role in the
> Gaza war. He's lied about a lot of other things. You are backing a
> propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it. Are you oblivious? Are you
> simply misled? You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
> Azal.
>
> - All Bad
MIA1: You should know by now that I see through your attempts to caste Wahid
Azal in a particular light, and to curb my criticism of the Haifan
AB: Walk by the light of his deceptions for as long as you like. He posted
on Sourcewatch that All Bad/Pat Kohli libels on Sourcewatch. You've seen
him libel me with his outrageous accusations such as war crimes for going on
vacation. You can remain a party to this disinformation for as long as you
choose. You are not the first and won't be the last one he has drawn in to
his twisted view of things.
MIA1: Baha'i organization by employing the tactics you do. You'll probably
AB: Please do feel free to criticize the Baha'i organization. Please share
your experiences, frustrations and disapointments. All I would ask is that
you keep it real. Posting the harebrained results of internet searches will
be questioned.
MIA1: disagree as you have above, but I have a good eye for these things and
AB: Patently you are in no position to give yourself a meaningful vision
test since you only see what you see.
MIA1: can clearly perceive certain things for myself. Right now, your
attempts to distance yourself from your online identity are failing
miserably, and have now created some very serious problems.
AB: The thread was started to discuss the charges on Sourcewatch of me or
Pat Kohli libeling. Either you can see that for yourself, or you can't.
You've been around on TRB for a few months. Either you have or have not
seen me libeling. This is a time and place to say so.
AB: You want to discuss whether I am or am not Pat Kohli, w/ no concession
of who you are, or what you represent By every standard you pose where I
could be Pat Kohli (I respond when called that), you are Bill Ayers, and yet
you know you are not Bill Ayers. How can you possibly know I am Pat Kohli,
then? You apply different standards for yourself than you do for me. I
think I know why you do that. I think you already believe that I am part of
some malicious, propagandizing committee. Can you see how I might suspect
that same of you? It would explain your double standards. Is it so? Are
you part of some malicious propaganda campaign? If not, how would I know
that?
AB: BTW, Paul Hammond is not a Baha'i, even though he is also alleged to be
part of the Baha'i black ops internet team. If there were a covert team, it
would be most unlikely a Baha'i organisation would recruit a non-Baha'i.
- All Bad
paha...@onetel.net.uk
I already answered it, Fuck the British.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> > AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> > Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
> > bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
> > expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.
>
> > AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
> > nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> > TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.
>
> I presume that name because you have answered questions directed
>
> So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a
> level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.
>
>
So, May, who is it that you are again?
Paul
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to Sourcewatch.org.
> There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB. This is TRB.
> Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB? Has W shown you examples
> of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?
>
No, that's not how it works. You may have addressed me as Bill Ayers
(and have also admitted that you don't actually think I'm Bill Ayers
anyway and are just making a point), and I may have answered the post,
but I did not provide an answer in the first person with personal
information that was congruent with Bill Ayers' personal information,
thus constituting the impression that I was replying as that identity.
You, on the other hand, have done just that. You have been addressed
as Pat Kohli, and have answered to the presentation of personal
information about yourself/Pat Kohli in the FIRST PERSON, and have
made no prior efforts to deny that identity. Now things are getting
difficult for you, you are attempting to disavow the identity of Pat
Kohli, which is in itself very telling.
So you deemed it useful to comment on this page without having
gathered all the facts?
>
> MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
> advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
> is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
>
> AB: Wahid says he took Daime. Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca.
Wahid has never made claims regarding the distribution of Ayahuasca.
That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in
your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.
> don't make this up, like a certain user of hallucinogens.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2
>
>
>
> > MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> > in
>
> > AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> > misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> > the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> > Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> > Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> > cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> > it
> > other than ignoring it.
>
> MIA1: Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
> this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
> fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
>
> AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli. Clearly, I am posting as
> All Bad. You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not posting
> as Bill Ayers.
You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.
> well known.http://altreligion.about.com/od/symbols/ig/Baha-i-Faith-Symbol-Galler...
>
> MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of
> the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
> lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.
No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to remain consistent in their
targeting of parties using the name Baha'i.
>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> > to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Once more, you have answered questions addressed to Pat Kohli as Pat
Kohli, providing information in the first person tense. Other posters,
such as Viv, have referred to you as Pat in their posts, and you have
not corrected them on this issue. So the fact remains that for all
intents and purposes, you have answered for the identity of Pat Kohli
whilst posting under the user handle All Bad. Not looking good.
maybe...@gmail.com
Probably a bit of a headache for you right now.
PaulHammond
maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry?
YOu are "a bit of a headache"?
That's what it says on your birth certificate?
What an odd answer for an anonymous person who is demanding to know
the truth of another persons internet identity to give?
Paul
All Bad
news:5a974fda-b3bb-4c4e...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 8, 9:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to
> Sourcewatch.org.
> There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB. This is TRB.
> Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB? Has W shown you examples
> of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?
>
AB: I noticed you passed on this question. So, you do agree that he not
only libels, but he's gotten you to go along, like the UAV thing?
MIA1: No, that's not how it works. You may have addressed me as Bill Ayers
(and have also admitted that you don't actually think I'm Bill Ayers
anyway and are just making a point), and I may have answered the post,
but I did not provide an answer in the first person with personal
information that was congruent with Bill Ayers' personal information,
thus constituting the impression that I was replying as that identity.
You, on the other hand, have done just that. You have been addressed
as Pat Kohli, and have answered to the presentation of personal
information about yourself/Pat Kohli in the FIRST PERSON, and have
made no prior efforts to deny that identity. Now things are getting
difficult for you, you are attempting to disavow the identity of Pat
Kohli, which is in itself very telling.
>
AB: Clearly you are working some distinctions that are far to subtle for me
to follow. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of "The Looking Glass", and when
I hear you rationally say, "words mean what we mean them to mean" I
understand that as utter goobledygook that implies _meaningful_ discussion
with you is pointless, since you can't mean just what said, you only mean
what you meant and you might not have meant that at all.
(snip)
MIA1: So you deemed it useful to comment on this page without having
gathered all the facts?
AB: I thought I was being asked to comment on the page. Are you just as
dodgy with your questions as you are with your statements? I did not look
at the site, just the covenant page. If you don't follow your own
questions, don't expect me to be patient with your confusion.
>
> MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
> advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
> is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
>
> AB: Wahid says he took Daime. Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca.
MIA1: Wahid has never made claims regarding the distribution of Ayahuasca.
AB: He is the co-head of an Ayahuasca Sufi Order, two great tastes from
different religious continuums.
http://www.punchkids.net/2007/03/20/wahid-azal/ Do you suppose someone else
wrote that one for him? His order is called, "Fatimiya Sufi Order" and he
says that they don't charge for the tea.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/ce8e206701a8d47f I
seem to recall him telling me that it was not completely illegal in
Australia (Oz) and that he even put together a defense strategy for someone
accused of possession.
AB: BTW, I can now see someone using the name "Pat Kohli" in their handle.
It is W and he has my handle in there, too.
MIA1: That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in
your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.
AB: Someone other than mash or me wrote, "In recent years Wahid Azal has
become an advocate for the use of the Amazonian psychoactive tea known as
Ayahuasca." It looks like something Sourcewatch.org would take as a
reference, press-release grade material. A lot of the handles in this link
are Wahid's: Abraxas, AHWA, Baha'u'llah, Azal, Freethought, possibly Abdl
Azazel, 383,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/search?group=talk.religion.bahai&q=Ayahuasca&qt_g=Search+this+group
AB: Right here on TRB he defended his order's distribution of this powerful
healing medicine, almost clearly legal, blah blah blah, but you say he has
never made any claims about distribution of Ayahuasca. Is it illegal again?
I thought I tried to tell him that.
> don't make this up, like a certain user of
> hallucinogens.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2
>
>
>
> > MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> > in
>
> > AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> > misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I
> > enrolled,
> > the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> > Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> > Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> > cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> > it
> > other than ignoring it.
>
> MIA1: Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
> this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
> fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
>
> AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli. Clearly, I am posting as
> All Bad. You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not
> posting
> as Bill Ayers.
MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.
AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.
>
> MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
> then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
>
> AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.
>
> MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
> the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
>
> AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web
> page
> that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
> opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
> have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.
>
> MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
> identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
> organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
> alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
>
>
>
>
(snip)
>
> MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants
> of
> the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty
> clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
> lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.
MIA1: No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to remain consistent in their
targeting of parties using the name Baha'i.
AB: I don't think you should make up jobs for the UHJ w/o telling them. My
superficial impression of the recent lawsuit was that the US NSA was the
plaintiff. Now you seem to be saying it was the UHJ, was I mistaken, or is
this another example of your Queen of Hearts dictionary at work?
>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> > to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
MIA1: Once more, you have answered questions addressed to Pat Kohli as Pat
AB: Another one, Bill Ayers? Where was the first question to Pat Kohli
that I answered as Pat Kohli? Where was the second one? I thought you were
asking me questions. I'm sorry for butting in. Could you hold your breath
while Pat answers the questions you put to him?
MIA1: Kohli, providing information in the first person tense. Other
posters,
such as Viv, have referred to you as Pat in their posts, and you have
AB: I don't see malice w/ Viv or Paul. I don't see projectile confusion on
'obvious' and 'resident', or 'page' vs 'site'. These are mistakes that you
make and push on me.
MIA1: not corrected them on this issue. So the fact remains that for all
intents and purposes, you have answered for the identity of Pat Kohli
whilst posting under the user handle All Bad. Not looking good.
AB: And your name is something other than Bill Ayers? What about the
libel?
- All Bad
All Bad
news:56e3d2ad-d1ee-42d4...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...(snip)
> So, May, who is it that you are again?
>
> Paul
MIA1: Probably a bit of a headache for you right now.
AB: Maybe a meat puppet for Fuck.
- All Bad
Ruhaniya
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ruhaniya
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PaulHammond
You seem to be having some problems responding to this post,
FucktheBahais.
A long quote ending in confusion, and no words from yourself - what's
that about?
All Bad
(nothing added)
So, did you have any examples of libel to share, or did you just want to
wave your imperial arm and say, "It is a well known fact that whatever I say
must be so, and is not to be questioned"? You do that so marvelously.
- All Bad
Death to Haifan Bahaism
wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
maybe...@gmail.com
> wrote that one for him? His order is called, "Fatimiya Sufi Order" and he
> says that they don't charge for the tea.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/ce8e206701a8d47fI
> seem to recall him telling me that it was not completely illegal in
> Australia (Oz) and that he even put together a defense strategy for someone
> accused of possession.
>
> AB: BTW, I can now see someone using the name "Pat Kohli" in their handle.
> It is W and he has my handle in there, too.
>
> MIA1: That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in
> your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.
>
> AB: Someone other than mash or me wrote, "In recent years Wahid Azal has
> become an advocate for the use of the Amazonian psychoactive tea known as
> Ayahuasca." It looks like something Sourcewatch.org would take as a
> reference, press-release grade material. A lot of the handles in this link
> are Wahid's: Abraxas, AHWA, Baha'u'llah, Azal, Freethought, possibly Abdl
And you answer in the first person questions directed towards Pat
Kohli?
And why did you answer this thread regarding Pat Kohli in the first
person if you are not him?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/9a33322701a865c4
Has Pat Kohli been spear-fishing in E. Australia lately?
All Bad
View profile
More options Jan 2, 11:10 pm
Just because you did it does not mean I would.
- All Bad
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29401699-5b81-4af8-
b3b6-364...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5241178/man-accidentally-spears-g...
> Man accidentally spears own groin
> ABC - January 2, 2009, 9:45 am
> A man who speared himself in the groin on the Sunshine Coast in south-
> east Queensland is recovering from his ordeal in hospital.
> The 25-year-old man was spear fishing on rocks near Coolum yesterday
> afternoon when he was hit by a wave.
> He fell onto the loaded gun and a two-metre spear pierced his groin.
> He was flown to the Nambour Hospital where he had emergency surgery to
> remove it.
> He remains in a stable condition.
To me, it appears that you've suddenly become quite uncomfortable with
your posting history as All Bad. I wonder why that would be?
Now, you've made a statement that you're not Pat Kohli here:
MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli,
giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.
AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.
Think wisely now, Pat. If you are Pat Kohli, you've just proven how
enormously deceitful you are, and that you are now spinning a bald
faced lie to get out of certain statements you've made on this board.
If you are not Pat Kohli, you've just proven what a fraud you are,
especially considering that when other posters on this board, such as
Paul and Viv, have referred to you by the name Pat, you have made no
efforts to correct them. This certainly suggests knowing collusion on
their part. And I'd forget trying to qualify the above statement
regarding 'living in the same neighborhood' as Pat Kohli, by saying
that still means you may or may not be him. You are clearly suggesting
in this statement that All Bad and Pat Kohli are separate people.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
> > then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
>
> > AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.
>
> > MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
> > the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
>
> > AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web
> > page
> > that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
> > opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
> > have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.
>
> > MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
> > identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
> > organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
> > alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
> (snip)
>
> > MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants
> > of
> > the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty
> > clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> > AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
> > lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.
>
> MIA1: No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to ...
>
> read more »
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8245dc5d-728f-4b1b...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...(snip)
>
> MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving
> numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
> history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
> time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
> of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
> activities on this board don't look any better.
>
> AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.
MIA1: And you answer in the first person questions directed towards Pat
Kohli?
AB: Bill, we've been through this. You are not Bill Ayers and you answer
questions addressed to Bill Ayers.
MIA1: And why did you answer this thread regarding Pat Kohli in the first
person if you are not him?
AB: W grabbed a news clipping about a man spear fishing in East Oz (where
he lives) and said it was Pat Kohli. Let me decode that for you. Nobody -
nobody but maybe W and now maybe you, because you two might be capable of
swallowing W's lies whole - would believe that W really thought that might
be Pat Kohl. It was just wishful thinking and obnoxiousness on W's part.
AB: How old are you, that you need a translator on this kind of stuff?
Were you home schooled, or just haven't been to third grade, yet, where this
kind of thing comes up?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/9a33322701a865c4
Has Pat Kohli been spear-fishing in E. Australia lately?
All Bad
View profile
More options Jan 2, 11:10 pm
Just because you did it does not mean I would.
- All Bad
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29401699-5b81-4af8-
b3b6-364...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5241178/man-accidentally-spears-g...
> Man accidentally spears own groin
> ABC - January 2, 2009, 9:45 am
> A man who speared himself in the groin on the Sunshine Coast in south-
> east Queensland is recovering from his ordeal in hospital.
> The 25-year-old man was spear fishing on rocks near Coolum yesterday
> afternoon when he was hit by a wave.
> He fell onto the loaded gun and a two-metre spear pierced his groin.
> He was flown to the Nambour Hospital where he had emergency surgery to
> remove it.
> He remains in a stable condition.
MIA1: To me, it appears that you've suddenly become quite uncomfortable
with
your posting history as All Bad.
AB: I don't feel uncomfortable. Why do you say I'm uncomfortable?
MIA1: I wonder why that would be?
AB: Because you jump to conclusions. I might ask why you jump to
conclusions, but I really don't care. I might ask if your parents know what
you are doing on the computer, but, again, I really don't care.
MIA1: Now, you've made a statement that you're not Pat Kohli here:
AB: You don't say who you are or are not. Maybe it was one of your parents
conditions before playing on the internet. Maybe I am eight years old, too,
and I'm not allowed to discuss my personal life on the internet, either? I
don't think I'm saying if I am or am not Pat Kohli. I'm asking about
libeling. W has libeled and I don't see that I have.
MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli,
giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.
AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.
MIA1: Think wisely now, Pat. If you are Pat Kohli, you've just proven how
AB: I don't see that, Bill. Maybe you are deceitful, getting fixated and
obnoxious w/ someone who won't give up their real world name. From my
perspective, it reflects a lot about you. You don't give up yours and you
demand I give up mine. That is hypocricsy. As long as I play my game, I am
just nobody and you are a rather obvious hypocrite. I don't see why I
should change my game. I'm not the one who is so obviously a hypocrite,
Bill.
MIA1: enormously deceitful you are, and that you are now spinning a bald
faced lie to get out of certain statements you've made on this board.
AB: Not at all. You are simply dodging the question of who on TRB is
libeling. W is the libeler and now he is even libeling on Sourcewatch.
MIA1: If you are not Pat Kohli, you've just proven what a fraud you are,
AB: Who is a fraud if I'm not Pat Kohli?
MIA1: especially considering that when other posters on this board, such as
Paul and Viv, have referred to you by the name Pat, you have made no
AB: And they don't look like hypocrites since not only are they not
hounding me about my identity, but they've given up their actual names for
all to know.
MIA1: efforts to correct them. This certainly suggests knowing collusion on
AB: Your suggestion of collustion is a suggestion of Wesque paranoia. W
suggested that people were colluding with Sourwatdh.org editors to question
his libel charge.
MIA1: their part. And I'd forget trying to qualify the above statement
regarding 'living in the same neighborhood' as Pat Kohli, by saying
that still means you may or may not be him. You are clearly suggesting
in this statement that All Bad and Pat Kohli are separate people.
AB: That was not my intention at all. I just wanted to say I know Pat
Kohli. He lives in the same area that I do.
- All Bad
PaulHammond
maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
May, I have a question for you.
Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
anonymously?
If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
here, then who are you?
You really can't have this one both ways.
Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
Paul
Ruhaniya
wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> anonymously?
I have a better question. Do you think it's right for people to post
in this or any other forum using names that aren't legitimately
there's, like you, for example, and your fictitious Paul Hammond
persona - which is not your real name - or Pat using the name Owen on
SW and duplicitously claiming he isn't Pat Kohli here?
W
maybe...@gmail.com
Doesn't work that way, Paul. It's a question of having answered
certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
of that online identity. Pat made the choice NOT to post anonymously,
NOT TO CLEARLY CORRECT any misleading statements made by, or addressed
to his identity (such as referring to him as Pat), and has attempted
to cast doubt upon wether prior statements he has made as 'All Bad' in
the first person were made by him or by someone else. As I have
suggested before, if the handle All Bad is clearly associated with
Pat, he is either clearly responsible for all those posts AS AN
ESTABLISHED IDENTITY, or there are multiple people using that handle
and posting on his behalf. I know how you're trying to play this one.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
>
> You really can't have this one both ways.
You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
> Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
about much more than just making a point. I wonder, if Pat was just
making a point, once the point is made, will he be reverting back to a
clearly identifiable online presence as Pat Kohli/All Bad?
>
> you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
Sure I am, Paul.
>
> Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > anonymously?
>
> > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > here, then who are you?
>
> Doesn't work that way, Paul.
Does it not? Why not?
> It's a question of having answered
> certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> of that online identity.
Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
about why you've been libelling him?
>. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?
>
>
> > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
Oh right. So it's YOU who makes the rules is it? One way for you,
and another way for Pat?
Isn't that known as hypocrisy?
>
> > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> about much more than just making a point.
You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?
>
> > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> Sure I am, Paul.
>
You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > anonymously?
>
> I have a better question. Do you think it's right for people to post
> in this or any other forum using names that aren't legitimately
> there's, like you, for example, and your fictitious Paul Hammond
have you seen my birth certificate, Nima?
Who are you telling me I am this week, Nima? Shall I be Bill
Garlington again?
Paul
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> have you seen my birth certificate, Nima?
No, show it to us...Scan it and put it online for everyone to see it,
just like these declassified British cabinets documents here proving
British/Bahaim collusion and espionage,
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home
> Who are you telling me I am this week, Nima? Shall I be Bill
> Garlington again?
You tell us who you are, first, by showing us your birth certificate,
a copy of your National ID or driver's license (if you have one), a
passport and further corrborative information about yourself, before
we tell you who you are.
W
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
You sure are, Paul - or is that your name at all?
W
BAHAISM AND THE BRITISH,
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home
Also see, especially,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part, the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
maybe...@gmail.com
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not? Why not?
>
> > It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?
>
> >. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> > It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
> You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?
It's called being predictable. Almost robotically so. You know, like
the robots in all those sci-fi programs you like so much?
>
>
>
> > > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> > You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
> Oh right. So it's YOU who makes the rules is it? One way for you,
> and another way for Pat?
And you wonder why I would tell you that I can perceive your methods.
>
> Isn't that known as hypocrisy?
>
There you go again, imagining you would be an arbiter of such things.
>
>
> > > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> > So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> > about much more than just making a point.
>
> You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?
Birds of a feather.
>
>
>
> > > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> > Sure I am, Paul.
>
> You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
>
> Paul
How about pulling out that birth certificate, Paul?
maybe...@gmail.com
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not? Why not?
>
> > It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?
Where was it that I was libeling him again? Think carefully now.
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdabbc1a-9104-46db...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not? Why not?
>
> > It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?
MIA1: Where was it that I was libeling him again? Think carefully now.
AB: So, you do admit to libeling him previously. That is a start.
AB: Oh, that is not what you meant? Back to square zero!
- All Bad
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What are you on, Pat? That's a really weak ploy. Oh well, keep
trying.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > > anonymously?
>
> > > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > > here, then who are you?
>
> > > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> > Does it not? Why not?
>
So, you cannot explain why it "doesn't work that way, Paul"?
> > > It's a question of having answered
> > > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > > either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > > of that online identity.
>
> > Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> > Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> > about why you've been libelling him?
>
> > >. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> > > It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
> > You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?
>
> It's called being predictable. Almost robotically so. You know, like
> the robots in all those sci-fi programs you like so much?
>
Which robots would those be, Maybeam?
>
>
> > > > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> > > You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
> > Oh right. So it's YOU who makes the rules is it? One way for you,
> > and another way for Pat?
>
> And you wonder why I would tell you that I can perceive your methods.
>
But, here you are, joining with Nima in a demand to see my birth
certificate. And yet you reserve to yourself the right to remain
anonymous.
I think it's quite an important question to understand why you think
you should be in charge of telling us "the way things work", and why
one set of people should be having to prove their identities and scan
birth certificates to satisfy the prurience of busibodies who accuse
us of varying degrees of mendacity, while you can happily refuse to
answer any personal questions at all.
There's a whole thread Nima started, which contains many true things
about me elsewhere on this board.
What is your name?
>
>
> > Isn't that known as hypocrisy?
>
> There you go again, imagining you would be an arbiter of such things.
>
Whereas, you seem to KNOW that you are the arbiter of such things. I
think it's only fair that you answer the question as to whether you
think it's okay for people to preserve their anonymity on the
internet.
Simple question. Will you answer it? Or make some vague crack about
my being "predictible" in an attempt to avoid giving any reasonable
answer to that question.
>
>
> > > > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > > > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> > > So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> > > about much more than just making a point.
>
> > You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?
>
> Birds of a feather.
>
Flock together. And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
you can mind-read me? Was there an answer to that question, or just
the start of a proverb?
>
>
> > > > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> > > Sure I am, Paul.
>
> > You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
>
> > Paul
>
> How about pulling out that birth certificate, Paul?-
How about you go boil your head, May?
Paul
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Flock together. And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
> you can mind-read me?
Obviously your predictability on this and other matters has made us
capable of reading your mind, yes.
> How about you go boil your head, May?
How about you demonstrate to us how it's done in person, limey ponce?
W
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 13, 3:49 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Flock together. And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
> > you can mind-read me?
>
> Obviously your predictability on this and other matters has made us
> capable of reading your mind, yes.
>
Well, I've made a prediction about your behaviour on Sourcewatch.
Let's wait and see how that one works out before we start awarding
points for mind-reading.
May's assertion that "she knows what we're doing" is about as
worthless as your continuous self-declared victories.
Really, all she's doing is being snarkily vague without actually
saying anything.
Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
Paul
Aor
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Well, I've made a prediction about your behaviour on Sourcewatch.
And your prediction - which is actually a _predilection_ to
manipulate site administrators and people in other contexts and feed
them mounds of BS - has come to nothing on SW.
> Let's wait and see how that one works out before we start awarding
> points for mind-reading.
You can start awarding points right now. The article on KKKholi still
stands after all his underhanded attempts to have it removed, to such
a point that he his presently creating aliases which are then creating
as smokescreens articles regarding military software KKKholi works on
while pretending to be other people.
On this one, we win! You lose!
<bs snip>
W
maybe...@gmail.com
maybe...@gmail.com
As I've pointed out before (in a slightly different context), if all I
was being was snarkily vague, you wouldn't spend so much time here
answering me. And defending Pat. And the Haifan Baha'is, even though
you say you're not one.
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6658d2fa-a3cf-4a0e...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 10:42 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 00:18, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 3:49 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> > "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> > that he is probably working for them."
>
> > -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > > Flock together. And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
> > > you can mind-read me?
>
> > Obviously your predictability on this and other matters has made us
> > capable of reading your mind, yes.
>
> Well, I've made a prediction about your behaviour on Sourcewatch.
> Let's wait and see how that one works out before we start awarding
> points for mind-reading.
>
> May's assertion that "she knows what we're doing" is about as
> worthless as your continuous self-declared victories.
>
> Really, all she's doing is being snarkily vague without actually
> saying anything.
MIA1: As I've pointed out before (in a slightly different context), if all
I
was being was snarkily vague, you wouldn't spend so much time here
answering me. And defending Pat. And the Haifan Baha'is, even though
you say you're not one.
AB: So, somehow in your childhood you missed out on the joy of taunting the
schoolyard bully, day after day, after day? I had a lot of fun doing that
and sometimes I feel like I can relive aspects of my childhood, with modern
inventions, like usenet.
AB: I have issues with no nothings who went to sell the world on their
fantasy to further gum up the world I live in. If I can point out their
lies, it soothes me more than watching American Idol, and seeing that
Michael Jackson might be replaced some day.
AB: Wouldn't Paul want the same thing? Isn't this what you'd like to think
you are doing? Catching the bullying no nothings in their tall tales?
Musolini loved his family. George Bush meant well for his country, and I
have no doubt that you have the best of motives here, like your own personal
entertainment. Why expect less of Paul? W hangs out here all the time, and
has even defused an embarassment for the AO, but since he _sez_ he is not a
bahooooveyeyeyey, you accept that, while denying Paul's denial of being a
bahooveyeyeyey. George Bush meant well, and you are here for your
entertainment. Who could expect more?
- All Bad
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think you've forgotten who the bully is here, and in terms of lying
to yourself and others, both you and Paul present pathologies that
represent a psychologist's dream.
>
> AB: I have issues with no nothings who went to sell the world on their
> fantasy to further gum up the world I live in. If I can point out their
> lies, it soothes me more than watching American Idol, and seeing that
> Michael Jackson might be replaced some day.
You have issues with the truth, even when it's put in front of your
eyes.
>
> AB: Wouldn't Paul want the same thing? Isn't this what you'd like to think
> you are doing? Catching the bullying no nothings in their tall tales?
Tales so tall that they have to create a world-wide, heavily censored
publishing network so they can pass off their own propaganda and
distorted historical narratives as genuine 'academic' material?
> Musolini loved his family. George Bush meant well for his country, and I
> have no doubt that you have the best of motives here, like your own personal
> entertainment.
So meaning well absolves you from the responsibility of criminal
behavior, and acts of supreme moral and intellectual cowardice?
> Why expect less of Paul? W hangs out here all the time, and
> has even defused an embarassment for the AO, but since he _sez_ he is not a
> bahooooveyeyeyey, you accept that, while denying Paul's denial of being a
> bahooveyeyeyey.
Paul's duplicitous behavior has just become so blindingly obvious, it
doesn't take a genius to spot it.
> George Bush meant well, and you are here for your
> entertainment.
You like to talk about projection, and there you go, projecting your
warped idea of entertainment onto me. I wonder what you think about
when you help design those weapons systems?
> Who could expect more?
>
> - All Bad
The people who have witnessed the morally bankrupt behavior engaged in
by various members and associates of the Haifan Baha'i organization on
behalf of that organization, and those people who would like to ensure
that such behaviors never find a shred of acceptability in the wider
society. That's who could expect more.
mash_ghasem
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There is only one way to deal with wanna be bullies. Bloody their
nose and send them packing to hospital. These babis are in no position
to bully any one. They tired and got slaughtered in Iran and they are
in hiding pretending to muslims. They are a done deal.
.
>
> AB: I have issues with no nothings who went to sell the world on their
> fantasy to further gum up the world I live in. If I can point out their
> lies, it soothes me more than watching American Idol, and seeing that
> Michael Jackson might be replaced some day.
>
> AB: Wouldn't Paul want the same thing? Isn't this what you'd like to think
> you are doing? Catching the bullying no nothings in their tall tales?
> Musolini loved his family. George Bush meant well for his country, and I
> have no doubt that you have the best of motives here, like your own personal
> entertainment. Why expect less of Paul? W hangs out here all the time, and
> has even defused an embarassment for the AO, but since he _sez_ he is not a
> bahooooveyeyeyey, you accept that, while denying Paul's denial of being a
> bahooveyeyeyey. George Bush meant well, and you are here for your
> entertainment. Who could expect more?
>
> - All Bad- Hide quoted text -
maybe...@gmail.com
So is that how would you deal with the bullies in the Haifan Baha'i
organization, Mash?
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Alison Marshall, 2002:
"I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views
of members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years
without the member knowing and despite general assurances to
the contrary. When it suits the administration to act, it can
summarily disenrol the person at any time and without any notice.
In such circumstances, 'counselling' will comprise any communication
that member has had with the institutions, whatever its nature,
purpose
and timing. This action will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign
designed to destroy the member's reputation in the community. I think
members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating joining it,
have a right to know how the Baha'i administration behaves." [2002]
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/AlisonMarshall.htm
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very
technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to
unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified
threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)]
to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced,
then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to
listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i
institutions
are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong.
It is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals
go
away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have
no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have
any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the
outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this
organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm
NUR
> There is only one way to deal with wanna be bullies. Bloody their
> nose and send them packing to hospital.
Come on and try to bloody my nose, IRI agent. Be a man and let's what
you're made of rather than all talk and no action. Just make sure you
come equipped with a bullet proof vest, IRI agent, because if I see
you, you will be visiting your ancestors.
W
All Bad
news:034879a2-5d8f-48b6...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
MIA1: I think you've forgotten who the bully is here, and in terms of lying
to yourself and others, both you and Paul present pathologies that
represent a psychologist's dream.
AB: You are demonising. You came here to bolster Nima's campaign against
the TJC. Rember the "trafficking in persons" discussions?
>
> AB: I have issues with no nothings who went to sell the world on their
> fantasy to further gum up the world I live in. If I can point out their
> lies, it soothes me more than watching American Idol, and seeing that
> Michael Jackson might be replaced some day.
MIA1: You have issues with the truth, even when it's put in front of your
eyes.
AB: I have issues with lying, and the fact that you consider yourself to be
on a noble crusade neither pardons your lies, nor enobles your jihad.
>
> AB: Wouldn't Paul want the same thing? Isn't this what you'd like to think
> you are doing? Catching the bullying no nothings in their tall tales?
MIA1: Tales so tall that they have to create a world-wide, heavily censored
publishing network so they can pass off their own propaganda and
distorted historical narratives as genuine 'academic' material?
AB: Wawa yada blah blah blaaaaah?
AB: Wahid has been lying here for years and you show up, and w/in a month
he had you lying too. Doesn't that bother you, at all? Oh, here are some
examples:
Wahid lying about Kholi and Maneck:
"Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that Kholi is a
paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on the internet
to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It is an even
better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My Revelation) is paid
by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster who admitted the monies
that he was being paid by the baha'i cult administration."
Wahid Azal, then known as Nima Hazini, January 2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0
"Nima, I never told you that I had received
$10,000, a portion of that amount, or any other amount from the Baha'i
Administration."
Mark Foster, January 2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1294ab6b0cddff34
Wahid lying about himself:
First he has Jewish ancestors that he is qie proud of:
"I am doing all of this for my great-grandmother, Sara'i Mottahedeh.
Sara'i's father was Mirza Yaqub Mottahedeh, one of the first Jewish Baha'i
converts in Hamadan." ... "I am doing this for the memory of Yaqub
Eshraghian, my great-grandfather, whose father was one of the first rabbis
in Tehran who converted to the Baha'i faith."
Wahid Azal, then known as Nima Hazini, September 2002
Then he doesn't even have Jewish ancestors:
"My ancestors were all Shi'a and Shaykhis."
Wahid, January 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
and then he does have esteemed Jewish ancestors again:
"My ancestors from my mothers side were the Kings and Prophets of Israel."
Wahid, December 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/03b415affa5c1279
In December he misquoted Juan Cole:
"Cole to KKKholi on "You have no friends" The message that W copied from
was addressed to Bret, not Kholi.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1a720d717862d132
In January you lied that UAV guidance was one of Pat Kohli's specialties:
"Pat Kohli, maybe you should approach Baha'i Masood Tayebi's business
interest, Kratos Defense and Security Solutions about working on some
guidance systems for their UAV's, since this area is one of your
specialities?"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/4b8484e221ba3f81?utoken=IxGDRjMAAABm4Yr6F3Ixbkp1I14-rJU3CLXw1a4mGa2WUML1lQSDKIqL9JMZiI_VVXiwd5G9TXmOqTO5Hut4tVhuOt6gW9s6
AB: What can justify this gratuitous and inflammatory falsehood on your
part?
> Musolini loved his family. George Bush meant well for his country, and I
> have no doubt that you have the best of motives here, like your own
> personal
> entertainment.
MIA1: So meaning well absolves you from the responsibility of criminal
behavior, and acts of supreme moral and intellectual cowardice?
AB: It certainly does not, my thickheaded friend. On the contrary, I
assume you mean as well as I do. I would suggest you consider that Paul,
me, and others you argue with do mean just as well as you do. But not only
am I suggesting that I might not intend to damn the world to hell fire, and
enslave the human race, I would suggest that you noble crusade can not
justify your attempts to villify others. You've simply been a victim of
your own, very common prejudices. A charming man that you met asks for some
help. He has some nasty folks who have been maliciously giving him a hard
time, he tells you, and you offer to help. You think they need smacking and
so you do, and they smack back, and as far as your concerned, it is just
like W told you. Yet from the perspective of those who were on TRB, you are
just his meat puppet, get treated like it, and it reinforces your
inclination that we are bad.
AB: Pay attention. Paul says he is not a Baha'i. Wahid says he is not a
Baha'i. W and maybe you, say Paul is lying about not being a Baha'i. Where
is your evidence that he lies? You show an interest on his part, but his
actions are consistent with his statements, not consistent with membership
in the BF. Examples include his statements on homosexuality and attempts to
preserve discussion of Remeyite Baha'i groups. Where is your evidence that
Wahid is not a Baha'i, working he same sort of false flag that Wahid accuses
Paul of? Dermod says that Wahid destroyed one of Dermod's efforts to
embarass the BF in NI. W's activities on the internet are quite useful in
painting the dissatisfied ex-Baha'is as spoiled brats who just won't work
well in groups.
AB: One of W's newer charges is that Pat Kholi and/or All Bad (me) is
libelling people on TRB. He posted that over on Sorcewatch.org. I started
a thread here just to see the libels! I got bupkus, which is American slang
for 'nothing'. Nobody over at Sourcewatch seems to care that he just says I
libel and provides no (zero) examples. I provide examples of lying when I
say someone lies. W has an agenda and though he does look for facts to fit
his agenda, he is happy to just stick with his assertions. Sometimes the
facts he finds just don't fit well; I suspect that they are just other
accusations, like his charge that the 8 Baha'i women from Kish were having
sex for conversions.
> Why expect less of Paul? W hangs out here all the time, and
> has even defused an embarassment for the AO, but since he _sez_ he is not
> a
> bahooooveyeyeyey, you accept that, while denying Paul's denial of being a
> bahooveyeyeyey.
MIA1: Paul's duplicitous behavior has just become so blindingly obvious, it
doesn't take a genius to spot it.
AB: Where are the facts of his duplicity? I've watched the guy on TRB for
years. He strikes me as a pretty reliable, and unbiased participant. If
you _ass_u_me_ that Nima is right: a) that Paul is a Bahooooooveyeyeyey, b)
Paul is a member of the Bahoooooveyeyey Internet Black Ops Squad, then his
lying about these things would seem to be duplicitous, but for the rest of
us who tend to doubt W's assertions without evidenc, _nooooooo_, it is not
PAUL's duplicity which is blindingly obvious, it is W. Azal's pattern of
substituting allegations for facts that is blindingly obvious and the thing
that is new is that _you_ are the one doing it.
> George Bush meant well, and you are here for your
> entertainment.
MIA1: You like to talk about projection, and there you go, projecting your
warped idea of entertainment onto me. I wonder what you think about when you
help design those weapons systems?
AB: What weapons systems am I designing? You were bad giving Pat Kohli
expertise in the guidance of UAVs, and you are doing it again. I'm trying
to point out that you might be excusing your own bad behavior by imagining
that what W told you is right that there is a Baah'i Black Ops Squad and you
are exposing it, but you are not. You are just flailing around on the box
with the lights and colors.
> Who could expect more?
>
> - All Bad
MIA1: The people who have witnessed the morally bankrupt behavior engaged in
by various members and associates of the Haifan Baha'i organization on
behalf of that organization, and those people who would like to ensure
that such behaviors never find a shred of acceptability in the wider
society. That's who could expect more.
AB: So, why are you following Nima about, even imitating him, and picking
on Paul and me? Stop practising morally bankrupt behavior, if you dislike
it and distance yourself from the moral debtor you follow around. I'm
hoping you find moral bankruptcy to be objectionable, rather than just
living Baha'i?
AB: As far as I'm concerned, just accusing Paul of blindingly obvious
duplicity, when you are cornered, is reminescent of W's baseless libels
labeled "Well known facts" or "widely known facts". To remain a victim of
your own prejudice would be morally bankrupt. For me to stand around and
just silently laugh at your pathetic demonstrations, would be bad, which is
what I aspire to be, but I've just had a slip today.
- All Bad
All Bad
news:8f2fa7c6-4723-4e82...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 12:48 pm, mash_ghasem <ghyath_ab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:47 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> There is only one way to deal with wanna be bullies. Bloody their
> nose and send them packing to hospital. These babis are in no position
> to bully any one. They tired and got slaughtered in Iran and they are
> in hiding pretending to muslims. They are a done deal.
MIA1: So is that how would you deal with the bullies in the Haifan Baha'i
organization, Mash?
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Alison Marshall, 2002:
"I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views
of members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years
without the member knowing and despite general assurances to
the contrary. When it suits the administration to act, it can
summarily disenrol the person at any time and without any notice.
In such circumstances, 'counselling' will comprise any communication
that member has had with the institutions, whatever its nature,
purpose
and timing. This action will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign
designed to destroy the member's reputation in the community. I think
members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating joining it,
have a right to know how the Baha'i administration behaves." [2002]
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/AlisonMarshall.htm
AB: I read Ms Marshall to say that Baha'is secretly spy on their members
and w/o warning disenroll them for some infraction, and, after
disenrollment, backbite them.
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very
AB: I just have to pause on this misdirection. The fact that someone
_does_ lie is far more signficant than speculations on why they might or
might not lie. Juan Cole lies when it suits his purposes, regardless of
wether it might jeopardize his professional reputation.
JC: technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to
unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified
threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)]
to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced,
then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to
listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i
institutions
are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong.
AB: I just read Prof. Cole to say that Baha'is threaten Bahai's with being
declared a CB when they are saying something they don't like. Is it just
me, or isn't this the opposite of what Alison Marshall said, that they don't
give any warning, they just dump you and backbite you. Here, Cole is saying
that they warn you that you will be declared a CB if you keep it up. I'm
not saying either is wrong, but I can see that these are two completely
incompatible approaches.
- All Bad
JC: It is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 13, 10:42 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
>
> > Well, I've made a prediction about your behaviour on Sourcewatch.
>
> And your prediction - which is actually a _predilection_ to
> manipulate site administrators and people in other contexts and feed
> them mounds of BS - has come to nothing on SW.
>
Well, there you go again. making a false assumption. And giving away
the fact that you've forgotten what my prediction actually was.
>
> > Let's wait and see how that one works out before we start awarding
> > points for mind-reading.
>
> You can start awarding points right now. The article on KKKholi still
> stands after all his underhanded attempts to have it removed, to such
> a point that he his presently creating aliases which are then creating
> as smokescreens articles regarding military software KKKholi works on
> while pretending to be other people.
>
There's still a few months to go before my prediction runs out. We'll
wait until full time, thanks.
Oh, and thanks for showing how annoyed with me you are - it's so much
fun to see ALL the thread titles gradually moving over to "First, I do
believe based on Hammond's" - do you actually want people to read what
you write on this site, or is it your aim to bore them into submission
by reading "I hate Paul" by "Death2Brits" over and over and over again?
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Wah, wah, wah WAAAHHH. Bleugh.
Oh, and what's your name? Or were you just planning to write out
textual representations of non-verbal vocalisations and hope that no-
one would notice that's an obvious way to avoid answering questions?
Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Oh right. You're buying into Nima's argument that mind-reading other
people's motivations and arguing from your false assumptions about
their cunning plans constitutes an argument.
I defend Pat because I consider him a friend, and Nima a worm. And
you a worm's cheerleader.
I'm not a Baha'i.
And I certainly don't "defend the Haifan Baha'is" - not on, for
example, the action against the OBF, the action against Tony Lee,
their support for attempts to "cure" people of homosexuality, just off
the top of my head.
And I don't believe in God. So the Baha'is disagree with me there,
too.
But I understand that you have a prejudice to support that won't
permit the facts to get in your way.
>
>
> > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
>
YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Who are you suggesting has been bullied here? The inveterate spammer
who you've helped to prop up his vendetta against Pat by setting up a
Sourcewatch article whose main use appears to be to provide material
for his ongoing spam campaigns? The guy who throws people out of any
mailgroup he owns when they stop toeing his party line, and yet cries
foul, censorship or plot when anyone ever tries to moderate HIM (see
Pat Kholi sourcewatch talkpage for the most recent example)
The guy who changes the headline of half of his posts to read "I
really believe Paul Hammond is a Baha'i Agent" because he can't STAND
to be contradicted by anybody who knows the difference between an
assertion and an argument?
YEah, poor, poor little defenceless Nima is being terribly bullied
around here all the time!
I notice that you've moved on from simply mind-reading to prescriptive
distance psychiatry now. I may be wrong, but wasn't that one of
Nima's "Baha'i methods"? Suggesting that the other person is a
loony? I'm pretty sure I remember it from that list. Go on, Nima -
spam us with that one again! You KNOW you wanna!
Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Has Nima told you the full story of the time that he fell out with
Alison Marshall, and denounced her and her husband Steve as "Haifan
Baha'i" fellow travellers? I'm PRETTY sure he's accused them both, in
terms, of being in the pay of the Baha'i Committee at some stage. The
whole thing fell to bits in public (as it nearly always does with
Wahid) right here, some time around 2004-5 iirc.
> Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998:
> "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
> professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very
> technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to
> unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified
> threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)]
> to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced,
> then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to
> listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i
> institutions
> are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong.
> It is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals
> go
> away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have
> no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have
> any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the
> outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this
> organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm
>
I have a great deal of respect for Prof Cole - who these days seems to
spend a certain amount of time as a pundit commenting on Middle
Eastern politics for American TV networks.
But, has Nima told you the full story of his spat with Prof Cole?
That's another one that went down, in public, right here. Although
for a lot of the time Nima was posting lengthy challenges to Prof Cole
in here to "come and debate him", when it was clear to everyone else
that Juan hadn't posted here for years and had no interest in doing
so.
Interesting that you'd try to quote two people who Nima hates, but who
I get on with and share a great deal of my views with as part of your
attempt to argue that Nima is a lone voice of justice in the
wilderness.
Paul
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
From Mission Problems in New Persia, 1926, p. 83, 87 & 89 quoted by
William McElwee Miller in The Baha'i Faith: It's History and
Teachings, 1973, p. 289.
"...There is no conscience with them [ i.e. the Baha'is], they keep
to no principle, they tell you what is untrue, ignoring or denying
undoubted historical facts, and this is the character of both the
leader and the led...As to morality and honesty, the whole system has
proved disappointing...I have been in contact with many Baha'is, and
have had dealings with many and have tested many, and unfortunately I
have met not a single one who could be called honest or faithful in
the full sense of these words..."
Dr Sa'eed Khan [was] a highly-respected physician...who had as a
doctor treated the second widow of the Bab, and had for a lifetime
known intimately both Babis [i.e. Bayanis] and Baha'is in Tehran and
Hamadan.
:
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> But, has Nima told you the full story of his spat with Prof Cole?
> That's another one that went down, in public, right here.
Yup. I also showed her,
From: Heather Carr-Rowe <r...@northwestel.net>
Date: Nov 18, 2005 1:59 AM
Subject: Your views of the Marshalls
To: wahidaza...@gmail.com
<snip>
I received the following message personally from Alison, who has no
official capacity at talisman currently, but has set herself up as
it's queen in waiting:
<From Alison>
Larry,
This is where we part company. I don't think your message to Talisman
is within the Haifan tradition.
If you had a direct link to God independent of Baha'u'llah, then you
would be able to produce verses to prove it. But you have never
produced anything
that would lead me to think you have such direct access to God through
your heart.
Alison
-
Non-Bahais note,
All Bad
news:f0602034-cda1-4424...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
So you said you showed her of your spat with Prof Cole, but you showed us
something on Allison Marshall. Do you consider Allison to be Juan? I just
thought that the enemies list might be getting shorter if we were all really
the same last Baha'i, now condensed into the Baha'i Ops Recruitment Group
(BORG).
- All Bad
Ruhaniya
On Mar 15, 12:32 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith
[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we
provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion
regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed
February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military | War/peace
Ruhaniya
maybe...@gmail.com
These so called "spats" are irrelevant, however you wish to portray
them. What these people have said individually about the Baha'i
organization stands entirely on its own merit.
NUR
> These so called "spats" are irrelevant, however you wish to portray
> them. What these people have said individually about the Baha'i
> organization stands entirely on its own merit.- Hide quoted text -
It is a warped mechanism and template of Bahai doublespeak that you
are not allowed to quote people you have criticized elsewhere for
similar criticisms on other issues in either similar or different
fora. As you can see from Fred's site, like me, he has also heavily
criticized and excoriated both the Marshalls and Cole - esp. for
selling out! But note that this doublespeak mechanism is part and
parcel of their tatic of shooting messengers without addressing
messages!
W
maybe...@gmail.com
You call me a cheerleader? Wow. 8+ years, Paul, and you don't even
call yourself a Baha'i. Somebody desperate to be part of the team? Or
hoping the team might someday win the Superbowl, and the cheerleaders
might get a cut?
maybe...@gmail.com
My Jihad? Says the man who is a member of the Baha'i faith and also
works for the military.
>
>
>
> > AB: Wouldn't Paul want the same thing? Isn't this what you'd like to think
> > you are doing? Catching the bullying no nothings in their tall tales?
>
> MIA1: Tales so tall that they have to create a world-wide, heavily censored
> publishing network so they can pass off their own propaganda and
> distorted historical narratives as genuine 'academic' material?
>
> AB: Wawa yada blah blah blaaaaah?
>
> AB: Wahid has been lying here for years and you show up, and w/in a month
> he had you lying too. Doesn't that bother you, at all? Oh, here are some
> examples:
>
> Wahid lying about Kholi and Maneck:
> "Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that Kholi is a
> paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on the internet
> to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It is an even
> better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My Revelation) is paid
> by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster who admitted the monies
> that he was being paid by the baha'i cult administration."
> Wahid Azal, then known as Nima Hazini, January 2003http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0
>
> "Nima, I never told you that I had received
> $10,000, a portion of that amount, or any other amount from the Baha'i
> Administration."
> Mark Foster, January 2003http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1294ab6b0cddff34
>
> Wahid lying about himself:
> First he has Jewish ancestors that he is qie proud of:
> "I am doing all of this for my great-grandmother, Sara'i Mottahedeh.
> Sara'i's father was Mirza Yaqub Mottahedeh, one of the first Jewish Baha'i
> converts in Hamadan." ... "I am doing this for the memory of Yaqub
> Eshraghian, my great-grandfather, whose father was one of the first rabbis
> in Tehran who converted to the Baha'i faith."
> Wahid Azal, then known as Nima Hazini, September 2002
>
> Then he doesn't even have Jewish ancestors:
> "My ancestors were all Shi'a and Shaykhis."
> Wahid, January 2005http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a7add3c27355aab6
>
> and then he does have esteemed Jewish ancestors again:
> "My ancestors from my mothers side were the Kings and Prophets of Israel."
> Wahid, December 2005http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/03b415affa5c1279
>
> In December he misquoted Juan Cole:
> "Cole to KKKholi on "You have no friends" The message that W copied from
> was addressed to Bret, not Kholi.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1a720d717862d132
>
> In January you lied that UAV guidance was one of Pat Kohli's specialties:
> "Pat Kohli, maybe you should approach Baha'i Masood Tayebi's business
> interest, Kratos Defense and Security Solutions about working on some
> guidance systems for their UAV's, since this area is one of your
> specialities?"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/4b8484e221ba3f...
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we
provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet." [2]
> You were bad giving Pat Kohli
> expertise in the guidance of UAVs, and you are doing it again. I'm trying
> to point out that you might be excusing your own bad behavior by imagining
> that what W told you is right that there is a Baah'i Black Ops Squad and you
> are ...
>
> read more »
Still pretty hesitant to talk in the first person as Pat Kohli here,
aren't you? Better use the old 'speaking about yourself in the third'
person technique. Best to maintain a little bit of distance for
liability purposes.
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d188207-4c10-4481...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 5:17 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
(snip)
>
> MIA1: You have issues with the truth, even when it's put in front of your
> eyes.
>
> AB: I have issues with lying, and the fact that you consider yourself to
> be
> on a noble crusade neither pardons your lies, nor enobles your jihad.
MIA1: My Jihad? Says the man who is a member of the Baha'i faith and also
works for the military.
AB: You accuse Paul of duplicity and offer no evidence of it. You are
simply lying. Either you see yourself on some higher purpose which
outweighs your moral slips, or you are just an inveterate liar. I was
trying to be charitable. Where are the facts of Paul's alleged duplicity?
AB: Where are the facts of Paul's alleged duplicity?
AB: Again, where are the facts of Paul's alleged duplicity?
AB: This does not even say that Pat Kohli is designing a weapon system.
Where are the facts of Paul's alleged duplicity?
> AB: You were bad giving Pat Kohli
> expertise in the guidance of UAVs, and you are doing it again. I'm trying
> to point out that you might be excusing your own bad behavior by imagining
> that what W told you is right that there is a Baah'i Black Ops Squad and
> you
> are ...
>
AB: Who wrote, "read more"? Where are the alleged facts of Paul's alleged
duplicity?
> read more »
MIA1: Still pretty hesitant to talk in the first person as Pat Kohli here,
aren't you? Better use the old 'speaking about yourself in the third'
person technique. Best to maintain a little bit of distance for
liability purposes.
AB: You don't have liabilility concerns, since your facts of Paul's
duplicity are so overwhelmingly obvious, that, uh, I can't see them. Where
are the facts of Paul's alleged duplicity?
- All Bad
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3650de34-7e92-4743...@t7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
MIA1: These so called "spats" are irrelevant, however you wish to portray
them. What these people have said individually about the Baha'i
organization stands entirely on its own merit.
AB: Yes, their experiences would be completely different. One sees bullies
hissing "CB" when someone skates a bit from the crowd, and the other sees
expulsion with no warning. Fred's "Bahai Censorship" looks like different
communities having different practices with non-conformists, perhaps. Nima
has bullied both of the folks with the different stories, as well as the oft
quoted Eric Stetson. That was the point, no?
- All Bad
mash_ghasem
You are a figment of Nima Hazini's imagination. He likes to play with
himself.
>
>
>
> > I'm not a Baha'i.
>
> > And I certainly don't "defend the Haifan Baha'is" - not on, for
> > example, the action against the OBF, the action against Tony Lee,
> > their support for attempts to "cure" people of homosexuality, just off
> > the top of my head.
>
> > And I don't believe in God. So the Baha'is disagree with me there,
> > too.
>
> > But I understand that you have a prejudice to support that won't
> > permit the facts to get in your way.
>
> > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
>
> > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
>
> > Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
paha...@onetel.net.uk
They are also people who your ally has accused of being part of the
worldwide Baha'i black ops organisation.
Point is, you'd better decide whether you're on Alison and Juan's side
or Nimas. Because they are not on the SAME side.
And if you're not on the same side with Nima, pretty soon you'll find
that you, too, are part of the Worldwide Bahooooooovey conspiracy.
There are also some substantive points you're ignoring here.
I basically consider what Alison and Juan have had to say about the
current Baha'i AO set up to be essentially correct. This isn't
something that fits in with your and Nima's narrative about me.
Pat has pointed out to you that Juan's conception of a "panopticon"
and Alisons comments about a sub-branch under the UHJ keeping tabs on
the "awkward squad" are both things that apply WITHIN the Baha'i
community. You are attempting to prove that there IS a Baha'i "black
ops" organisation that's trying to control Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, trb
and the world, per Nima.
Quoting from two of Nima's best enemies about their perceptions of the
state of thinks WITHIN Baha'i AOnia isn't particularly germaine to
your argument.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Wow! This is really weak, May - surely you could have done better
than that!
>
> > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
>
> > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
>
Still no denials! How MUCH does Nima pay you, May?
Oh, and are you willing to answer questions about your personal stake
in all this? Or is your role merely to be the inquisitor and chief
mind-reader around here?
Paul
ps - What's your name, May?
maybe...@gmail.com
a few months, and you've been all over the net for YEARS, in all the
major forums for Baha'i related criticism or discussion. Whatever the
truth behind you being an official member of the Baha'i faith is,
denying any affiliation, tangential or otherwise, to the organization
appears plain ridiculous. As you've explained, you were a non-Baha'i
member of several Baha'i university groups, and you've certainly done
your fair share of Baha'i Wikipedia editing. I actually think my
reference to your vested interest in this organization and its future
remains pretty much on the money. I don't think that the Baha'is could
have had a better cheerleader for their offensive line against critics
if they'd tried, despite you throwing about the occasional criticism
to maintain a sense of your neutrality.
>
>
> > > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
>
> > > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
>
> Still no denials! How MUCH does Nima pay you, May?
>
> Oh, and are you willing to answer questions about your personal stake
> in all this? Or is your role merely to be the inquisitor and chief
> mind-reader around here?
>
> Paul
>
> ps - What's your name, May?
No dice, Paul.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I basically consider what Alison and Juan have had to say about the
> current Baha'i AO set up to be essentially correct. This isn't
> something that fits in with your and Nima's narrative about me.
Bollocks! To wit,
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_frm/thread/1887081b6226d0d0/6ffa0b62942bbbb2?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4#6ffa0b62942bbbb2
What has Larry to do with this thread? You are accusing him here of
trying to convince people that he has a "direct link to the man
upstairs." Pretty harsh stuff, considering that he's not claiming
anything more than that we all have such a direct link-- and not to
any man up any stairs. You are echoing the exclusivistic Baha'i
understanding of what such a "direct link" would be, just to
antagonize and humiliate Larry. Why? What possible reason would a
non-Baha'i have to pursue and attack an ex-Baha'i on behalf of his
Baha'i enemies? What possible reason would a non-theist have for
attacking a pantheist on behalf of theists? This is bizarre."
May, it is worthwhile reading the rest of the thread as well. When I
later confronted HamHead about his attempt to bully Larry, as usual,
he outright denied it all, and then re-tracted his denial.
Just note I don't personally like K Paul Johnson or his so-called
scholarship, which is utter BS from my POV and as you will find out
for yourself. Among other reasons, he typifies the typology Guenon
spells out about Theosophical intellectuals in *Theosophy: History of
a Pseudo-Religion*. The guy is also gay and wears his homosexuality on
his sleave and regularly has an American style PC Liberal hissy-fit
whenever people don't play ball in uncritically endorsing and
applauding his sexual orientation without question! He has also been
hanging around the Baha'is for years upon years whilst claiming to be
a Theosophical dissident, and was most recently moderating Eric
Stetson's fake "ex-bahai" list before having a brief falling out with
him. All around he is a very dubious individual IMV. He is also the
PRIME target of Culhane's *A Letter to My Friends* on Glaysher's site.
At the time I vigorously defended him to Culhane's total spinelessness
in that letter, but as we both know too well, White American Liberals
are animals of the pack, not principle, so he was one of the first who
turned on me in 2002! He and Cole also don't talk to each other
anymore. But what he says to Hammond above basically says it all and
is revealing in its frank admissions.
> Pat has pointed out to you that Juan's conception of a "panopticon"
> and Alisons comments about a sub-branch under the UHJ keeping tabs on
> the "awkward squad" are both things that apply WITHIN the Baha'i
> community. You are attempting to prove that there IS a Baha'i "black
> ops" organisation that's trying to control Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, trb
> and the world, per Nima.
Who is trying to control SW, and when was that suggested, again? The
assertion was that you were attempting to unfairly lobby SW by
bombarding them with plethora of one-sided information. Seeing that
the article on Pat Kohli stands and that other articles are also going
up, while others are being amended and edited, it is pretty fair to
assume that Diane and Bob realized you guys are full of shit and
backed off, otherwise that article would be gone by now. And so goes
your poncey taxonomization of SourceWatch....
> Quoting from two of Nima's best enemies about their perceptions of the
> state of thinks WITHIN Baha'i AOnia isn't particularly germaine to
> your argument.
Juan Cole is not my enemy. He pissed me off and I let him know it in
no uncertain terms publicly, and we didn't speak to each other for a
couple of years. But he isn't my enemy. The Marshalls definitely are,
whom Cole BTW doesn't talk to anymore either. And while we're on the
subject of Juan Cole, he was also one of the first people, besides
Bruce Burril, who suggested you were an outright mole for the AO-
holes! FYI!
And you were going to tell us about your falling out with Karen
Bacquet again...
W
PaulHammond
maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently not. This really IS your best shot!
> You call me a cheerleader for posting here for
> a few months, and you've been all over the net for YEARS,
You don't become a cheerleader simply for posting in trb. Dermod
Ryder is no cheerleader. Steve Bayani was.
I call you a cheerleader, because it seems to me that your automatic
position within this group is "everything Nima says is the absolute
truth"
> in all the
> major forums for Baha'i related criticism or discussion.
False.
> Whatever the
> truth behind you being an official member of the Baha'i faith is,
> denying any affiliation, tangential or otherwise, to the organization
> appears plain ridiculous.
Does it? Why?
Pat had repeatedly asked you to justify your accusation regarding my
"clear duplicity"
> As you've explained, you were a non-Baha'i
> member of several Baha'i university groups, and you've certainly done
> your fair share of Baha'i Wikipedia editing. I actually think my
> reference to your vested interest in this organization and its future
> remains pretty much on the money.
Erm, what reference was that again? You are notoriously vague when
accusing people of things, unlike Nima, who says he knows something
about my "Baha'i handlers" and more recently my "Labour Party
handlers". And yet, will not name names or give details when asked to
justify the lies he tells about me.
> I don't think that the Baha'is could
> have had a better cheerleader for their offensive line against critics
> if they'd tried, despite you throwing about the occasional criticism
> to maintain a sense of your neutrality.
>
I have NEVER supported the Baha'is trying to suppress debate within
their own community. And you have not, because you cannot, quote me
ever doing so.
But of course, like a good cheerleader, you'd never let the facts get
in the way of your support for Nima's prejudice.
Tell me, do YOU hate all the British too?
>
> >
> > > > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
> >
> > > > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
> >
> > Still no denials! How MUCH does Nima pay you, May?
> >
> > Oh, and are you willing to answer questions about your personal stake
> > in all this? Or is your role merely to be the inquisitor and chief
> > mind-reader around here?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ps - What's your name, May?
>
> No dice, Paul.
Wow! How informative!
Look - if I'm expected to justify my interest in the Baha'i faith, my
presence on this group, and the reason why I am convinced that Nima is
a shit, and All Bad is to be menaced with not-quite-directly stated
legal threats about "identity fraud", don't you think it at least
reasonable that you'd actually offer your own name?
Paul
PaulHammond
Death to Haifan Bahaism wrote:
> And while we're on the
> subject of Juan Cole, he was also one of the first people, besides
> Bruce Burril, who suggested you were an outright mole for the AO-
> holes! FYI!
>
That's total bullshit, Nima, and you know it.
You tried precisely the same wedge-driving trick with me and Dermod,
when you publicised his private emails to you around this group, until
Dermod came up himself to disabuse you of your wishful thinking.
> And you were going to tell us about your falling out with Karen
> Bacquet again...
>
Well, I AM interested in knowing who is the source of your bad
information. Because I never did have a falling out with Karen
Bacquet.
I had thought you had found out that information was lousy, seeing as
how you'd gone very quiet about that one, after jumping up and down
about it for weeks.
NUR
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> That's total bullshit, Nima, and you know it.
No, it is not, since total bullshit are your transparent plausible
denials. Ask them, or better yet invite them here, and let them say it
themselves. Bruce Burrill publicly called you a mole; Juan Cole did so
privately to me and several other people. And your record speaks
voluminously for itself
> You tried precisely the same wedge-driving trick with me and Dermod,
> when you publicised his private emails to you around this group, until
> Dermod came up himself to disabuse you of your wishful thinking.
The wedge-pushing worked, because based on the clear and explicit
wording of what Dead Weed actually said, he dropped his mask once his
duplicity was made public far and wide. Cole BTW also first suggested
that Dermod was working for the AO-holes.
Now about your falling out with Karen Bacquet....
W
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 17, 3:52 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > That's total bullshit, Nima, and you know it.
>
> No, it is not,
Yes it is. juan Cole never said what you attributed to him. Being
charitable to you, it may have been wishful thinking, as with Dermod.
>
>
> > You tried precisely the same wedge-driving trick with me and Dermod,
> > when you publicised his private emails to you around this group, until
> > Dermod came up himself to disabuse you of your wishful thinking.
>
> The wedge-pushing worked, because based on the clear and explicit
> wording of what Dead Weed actually said, he dropped his mask once his
> duplicity was made public far and wide.
Oh? So your intention was always to split yourself away from Dermod,
was it?
Funny - did you get that line from Dermod himself, who suggested that
the original email to you was a way to get you to cough, if you
actually DID have any evidence about me.
Still, you borrow all your best lines from people actually in
possession of a sense of humour, don't you?
Cole BTW also first suggested
> that Dermod was working for the AO-holes.
>
Look, I'm just not buying that! That's a patently ridiculous
suggestion! Cole hadn't been posting here for two and you and Dermod
were still buddies then. You ONLY started denouncing him after it
became clear that he DIDN'T buy your continual lying about me.
>
> Now about your falling out with Karen Bacquet....
>
Yeah - who sold you THAT bundle of shit?
Paul
All Bad
news:7f6f4c35-c961-48bf...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 5:30 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 15 Mar, 09:53, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 8:52 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Mar, 04:25, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > You call me a cheerleader? Wow. 8+ years, Paul, and you don't even
> > call yourself a Baha'i. Somebody desperate to be part of the team? Or
AB: Are these things connected, the cheerleading and the eight years
presence? Aha! They are connected! You are cheerleading Nima Hazini whose
been here for eight years and two names even. Is Wahid Azal a Baha'i?
> > hoping the team might someday win the Superbowl, and the cheerleaders
> > might get a cut?
>
> Wow! This is really weak, May - surely you could have done better
> than that!
>
MIA1: Nothing weak about it. You call me a cheerleader for posting here
for
AB: Okay, so, you can't make out the weakness with your seeing eye dog, but
yeah, W's been here for eight years, through Sufiism, Atheism, Gnosticism,
Bayanism, and Daime.
MIA1: a few months, and you've been all over the net for YEARS, in all the
major forums for Baha'i related criticism or discussion. Whatever the
truth behind you being an official member of the Baha'i faith is,
denying any affiliation, tangential or otherwise, to the organization
appears plain ridiculous. As you've explained, you were a non-Baha'i
member of several Baha'i university groups, and you've certainly done
your fair share of Baha'i Wikipedia editing. I actually think my
reference to your vested interest in this organization and its future
remains pretty much on the money. I don't think that the Baha'is could
have had a better cheerleader for their offensive line against critics
if they'd tried, despite you throwing about the occasional criticism
to maintain a sense of your neutrality.
>
AB: So Paul's been doesn't believe in God; Nima seems to believe today,
though maybe his belief in himself might be misplaced. Paul speaks up for
homosexual rights, against the AO; and Nima talks down to Paul, the gays and
the AO. Not only was W on Wikipedia, he is on blogspot, and possibly
bahaiart or something like that.
AB: If Paul is a Baha'i, Wahid is two Baha'is.
>
> > > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
>
> > > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
>
> Still no denials! How MUCH does Nima pay you, May?
>
> Oh, and are you willing to answer questions about your personal stake
> in all this? Or is your role merely to be the inquisitor and chief
> mind-reader around here?
>
> Paul
>
> ps - What's your name, May?
MIA1: No dice, Paul.
AB: Nah, No Dice Paul is not your name. Try again.
- All Bad
maybe...@gmail.com
No. Saving that one.
Again, no dice, Paul, but thanks for taking the time to post.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=6&discussionID=270851&messages_per_page=4
PaulHammond
7/15/2003 7:36 PM 21 out of 36
Hearing an Atheist called Paul Hammond was a President of a bahai
society is the best joke I heard this week.
Nevertheless, it is true.
There is no reason why the officers or members of University Baha'i
societies have to be Baha'is. There were only 4 Baha'is on the campus
at Keele University, and yet we had about 50-odd members.
At Liverpool Uni, I can't remember how many of our other Society
officers were actually Baha'is, I think two of the four names on the
sheet were. If you were really that bothered about it, I expect my
name is still written on whatever record the Student Guild of
Liverpool University keeps of their society officers - that is, if
they have still got the information for 9 years ago, when I was an MSc
student there.
PaulHammond
7/15/2003 7:48 PM 22 out of 36
Reply:
Well its obvious from what you say * You did not attend a proper Feast
* Neither did you know the rules otherwise you would not have forced
yourself on ther Baha'is of Liverpool. They never turned you away out
of politeness. Likewise if a Baha'i invited you to a feast they were
very much in the wrong.
Errol, if you were bothering to read what I have written, you would
note that I said *Bristol*, not Liverpool was where I attended the
feast. This is just too ridiculous.
I was visiting my Baha'i friend, who is a cradle Baha'i, and whose
whole family are Baha'is, and this was about 3 years before I was an
MSc student at Liverpool. It so happened that the 19-day feast co-
incided with the time of my visit, and the family were faced with the
choice of either leaving me alone in the house while they attended the
feast, or asking if it was okay to take me along. Considering that I
was at the time (I think) Treasurer of the Keele Uni Baha'i Society,
and was clearly very interested in the Faith, and insisted that I
would not be bored, no objections were raised to my coming along, so
long as I understood that I would not be permitted to attend the
business portion of the feast.
I'm sure the Bristol LSA will be very concerned to hear that an ex-
Baha'i who now cannot seem to find a single good word to say about the
faith, and spends his every spare moment running it down in public
thinks that they did something "very wrong" over a decade ago when
they let an interested seeker attend their feast along with his Baha'i
hosts that they had known for years and years. If you are really
concerned, write to the Bristol LSA about it now. I'm sure no-one will
be able to remember it.
This is too ridiculous. I guess *you* won't be satisfied unless I call
up Jeanette now, and get her to come on the net to this thread to
swear on the Iqan that my story is true. Oddly enough, I'm not going
to be doing that, since my only reason for disclosing these facts
about my past Baha'i experiences is to give the lie to your assumption
about me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't
have enough Baha'i experience to back me up. I'm sure you can see now
that you were very wrong in that assumption.
Now, having settled all this, can we get back to the question that you
are avoiding answering?
Paul
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nodiceforyoueitherpat.
NUR
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them." - Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Yes it is. juan Cole never said what you attributed to him.
Yes, he did. He told me and several other people that you were
possibly a mole for the AO-holes. I dare him to say otherwise!
>Being
> charitable to you, it may have been wishful thinking, as with Dermod.
Nope, it wasn't. Cole knows the score about how the AO-hole
establishment works, and his statements on it are known far and wide.
> Oh? So your intention was always to split yourself away from Dermod,
> was it?
My intention was to see whether he would stand by what he said
privately versus his public circus act; and, indeed, it worked, yes!
He revealed himself as the two-faced, spineless dipshit that he
revealed himself as.
> Funny - did you get that line from Dermod himself, who suggested that
> the original email to you was a way to get you to cough, if you
> actually DID have any evidence about me.
The email from Dermod will stand in any court as saying what he said.
His subsequent back-flip would not stand, no.
> Look, I'm just not buying that!
Care factor what you believe: O! He said what he said, he knows what
he said, and the people he said it to know what he said as well.
>You ONLY started denouncing him after it
> became clear that he DIDN'T buy your continual lying about me.
On the contrary. My falling out with Cole had absolutely NOTHING, fuck-
all whatsoever to do with you!
> Yeah - who sold you THAT bundle of shit?
None of your business who told me! The fact that you and her had a
falling out is beyond dispute.
W
NUR
See also,"Pat Kohli LIES about his identity on SourceWatch"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/3b43eeee8c7f768c
On Mar 17, 11:10 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith
[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we
provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
PaulHammond
I'll believe it when I see it. You still seem incredibly naive to me.
Well, I suspected there'd not be an answer to this one. But isn't it
clear to you that Nima's got a real problem with ALL British folk, not
just me?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!
> >
> > > > > > YOu haven't denied it. Interesing.
> >
> > > > Still no denials! How MUCH does Nima pay you, May?
> >
> > > > Oh, and are you willing to answer questions about your personal stake
> > > > in all this? Or is your role merely to be the inquisitor and chief
> > > > mind-reader around here?
> >
> > > > Paul
> >
> > > > ps - What's your name, May?
> >
> > > No dice, Paul.
> >
> > Wow! How informative!
> >
> > Look - if I'm expected to justify my interest in the Baha'i faith, my
> > presence on this group, and the reason why I am convinced that Nima is
> > a shit, and All Bad is to be menaced with not-quite-directly stated
> > legal threats about "identity fraud", don't you think it at least
> > reasonable that you'd actually offer your own name?
> >
> > Paul
>
> Again, no dice, Paul, but thanks for taking the time to post.
>
What, exactly, do you mean by "no dice, Paul", May?
Your posting below appears designed to prove my point. You have many
facts about my background, and my biography as it involves the Baha'i
Faith.
Your posting of some of the archive on me below proves that point.
Not that long ago, Nima was seriously asking me to scan and post my
birth certificate onto the internet, so that I could prove that my
real name actually is Paul Hammond.
And yet, YOU are not even willing to make up an assumed name to post
under, and YOU refuse to reveal ANY biographical facts about yourself
and the reason for your interest in being Nima's Chief Cheerleader
whatsoever.
Do you REALLY think drawing attention to the information asymmetry
between us helps to make YOU seem more trustworthy?
I'm quite an open person, really. You are the one who seems to have
something to hide. Why IS that, May?
Paul
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:26 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them." - Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Yes it is. juan Cole never said what you attributed to him.
>
> Yes, he did. He told me and several other people that you were
> possibly a mole for the AO-holes. I dare him to say otherwise!
>
he didn't say it. However often you lie about it.
> [Re- Cole also called Dermod Ryder an AO Mole]
> > Look, I'm just not buying that!
>
> Care factor what you believe: O! He said what he said, he knows what
> he said, and the people he said it to know what he said as well.
>
>
> >You ONLY started denouncing him after it
> > became clear that he DIDN'T buy your continual lying about me.
>
> On the contrary. My falling out with Cole had absolutely NOTHING, fuck-
> all whatsoever to do with you!
>
And once again you need to learn how to read!
My point is that Juan Cole had not been posting here for about two
years at the time you decided to trash your friendship with Dermod
too.
So when, exactly, did Juan Cole become aware that Dermod wasn't
getting on with you any more, and tell you that he thought Dermod was
being paid by the AO to post here?
Considering that you had fallen out with Cole years before you had
fallen out with Dermod, the timing on this just doesn't stack up.
OTOH, "He's an AO Mole" is the first thing you say to anybody who ever
dares disagree with you in public.
So it doesn't take much to work out who it was who made up "and Juan
Cole says so too" as a supplimentary lie to bolster the big lie.
>
> > Yeah - who sold you THAT bundle of shit?
>
> None of your business who told me! The fact that you and her had a
> falling out is beyond dispute.
>
Only in your imagination, Nima. We haven't fallen out - I am vaguely
interested in what real-life event at unenrolled might have convinced
YOUR mole over there that we had, however.
Have you still got a mole in Unenrolled since you blew Starr out?
Paul
maybe...@gmail.com
Go look it up. Maybe it will make things clearer.
>
> Your posting below appears designed to prove my point. You have many
> facts about my background, and my biography as it involves the Baha'i
> Faith.
Thing is, I still suspect there's just as many non-facts behind those
'facts' as there are actual facts..
>
> Your posting of some of the archive on me below proves that point.
>
> Not that long ago, Nima was seriously asking me to scan and post my
> birth certificate onto the internet, so that I could prove that my
> real name actually is Paul Hammond.
>
> And yet, YOU are not even willing to make up an assumed name to post
> under, and YOU refuse to reveal ANY biographical facts about yourself
> and the reason for your interest in being Nima's Chief Cheerleader
> whatsoever.
>
> Do you REALLY think drawing attention to the information asymmetry
> between us helps to make YOU seem more trustworthy?
So I'm trying to earn YOUR trust? I wouldn't trust you as far as I
could throw you.
>
> I'm quite an open person, really. You are the one who seems to have
> something to hide.
Because I'm posting here absolutely on my terms, not yours? Buck up,
sweets.
> Why IS that, May?
>
> Paul
It's really getting to you, isn't it. Why is it so important for YOU,
a supposed NON-BAHAI CASUAL OBSERVER to know who I am? Seems like
you're leading the charge on this one, and I find that VERY telling.
I'd be very careful with the next set of tactics if I were you.
>
> >http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=6&discussionI...
> ...
>
> read more »
PaulHammond
maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
<snippage to the bone, cutting to the chase>
> >
> > > Again, no dice, Paul, but thanks for taking the time to post.
> >
> > What, exactly, do you mean by "no dice, Paul", May?
>
> Go look it up. Maybe it will make things clearer.
> >
> > Your posting below appears designed to prove my point. You have many
> > facts about my background, and my biography as it involves the Baha'i
> > Faith.
>
> Thing is, I still suspect there's just as many non-facts behind those
> 'facts' as there are actual facts..
Of course you do. In you usual casual/vague way.
You don't have any actual facts, you just have a funny feeling about
me which you'll refuse to actually specify.
Do your funny feelings have legal status?
> >
> > Your posting of some of the archive on me below proves that point.
> >
> > Not that long ago, Nima was seriously asking me to scan and post my
> > birth certificate onto the internet, so that I could prove that my
> > real name actually is Paul Hammond.
> >
> > And yet, YOU are not even willing to make up an assumed name to post
> > under, and YOU refuse to reveal ANY biographical facts about yourself
> > and the reason for your interest in being Nima's Chief Cheerleader
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > Do you REALLY think drawing attention to the information asymmetry
> > between us helps to make YOU seem more trustworthy?
>
> So I'm trying to earn YOUR trust? I wouldn't trust you as far as I
> could throw you.
It's clear that you're never likely to trust me - someone dumb enough
to trust/believe Nima isn't ever likely to strike me as someone I'd
like to win over anyway.
But I was actually asking you to consider the impression you might be
giving to some interested observer.
> >
> > I'm quite an open person, really. You are the one who seems to have
> > something to hide.
>
> Because I'm posting here absolutely on my terms, not yours? Buck up,
> sweets.
>
Of course - one rule for you, a different one for the people you
criticise.
You assert the right to your own security, the right to withhold ALL
personal information about yourself - but at the same time you
arrogate to yourself the rights of an inquisitor - the right to say
you think there's something dodgy about the biographical facts I have
already revealed to such as Errol (George Fleming, iirc) in the past -
the right to say that you think All Bad might be committing an actual
crime if he DOESN'T confirm his true identity when you command it.
Doesn't that cause you the slightest cognitive imbalance?
> > Why IS that, May?
> >
> > Paul
>
> It's really getting to you, isn't it.
No, you're not getting to me. But it is true to say that hypocrisy
does make me angry. That's one of the reasons why I post here,
sweets.
> I'd be very careful with the next set of tactics if I were you.
>
Ohh! Very scary! What are you, the internet mafia or something?
This is the basic question here. I'm pretty much an honest and open
person who answers questions as to who I am or why I am here (or I did
in the past) You are not.
What IS your agenda?
Paul
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e540c115-1ded-4704...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...(snip)
> > > > > ps - What's your name, May?
>
> > > > No dice, Paul.
>
> > > Wow! How informative!
>
> > > Look - if I'm expected to justify my interest in the Baha'i faith, my
> > > presence on this group, and the reason why I am convinced that Nima is
> > > a shit, and All Bad is to be menaced with not-quite-directly stated
> > > legal threats about "identity fraud", don't you think it at least
> > > reasonable that you'd actually offer your own name?
>
> > > Paul
>
> > Again, no dice, Paul, but thanks for taking the time to post.
>
> What, exactly, do you mean by "no dice, Paul", May?
MIA1: Go look it up. Maybe it will make things clearer.
>
> Your posting below appears designed to prove my point. You have many
> facts about my background, and my biography as it involves the Baha'i
> Faith.
MIA1: Thing is, I still suspect there's just as many non-facts behind those
'facts' as there are actual facts..
>
> Your posting of some of the archive on me below proves that point.
>
> Not that long ago, Nima was seriously asking me to scan and post my
> birth certificate onto the internet, so that I could prove that my
> real name actually is Paul Hammond.
>
> And yet, YOU are not even willing to make up an assumed name to post
> under, and YOU refuse to reveal ANY biographical facts about yourself
> and the reason for your interest in being Nima's Chief Cheerleader
> whatsoever.
>
> Do you REALLY think drawing attention to the information asymmetry
> between us helps to make YOU seem more trustworthy?
MIA1: So I'm trying to earn YOUR trust? I wouldn't trust you as far as I
could throw you.
>
> I'm quite an open person, really. You are the one who seems to have
> something to hide.
MIA1: Because I'm posting here absolutely on my terms, not yours? Buck up,
sweets.
> Why IS that, May?
>
> Paul
MIA1: It's really getting to you, isn't it. Why is it so important for YOU,
a supposed NON-BAHAI CASUAL OBSERVER to know who I am? Seems like
you're leading the charge on this one, and I find that VERY telling.
I'd be very careful with the next set of tactics if I were you.
AB: And all this time I thought YOU were leading the charge on knowing who
I am. But, when I factor in UAV guidance expertise, ane weapon design
experience, I know for a fact you are just making up identities for me.
AB: You are quite careless in your tactics. Everyone but you can see Paul
could give a rodent's rectum about your identity: Bill Ayers, Mike Barker,
or the Continuity Pat Kohli. Paul is drawing attention to your demands on
_my_ identity. Sometimes I wonder if you really are a kid living with your
folks. Do others have to explain things to you? It does not mean you have a
low IQ. Intelligence is very complicated and an umbrella for a lot of very
different cognitive skills.
- All Bad
NUR
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> he didn't say it.
Yes, he did.
> We haven't fallen out -
Yes, you have. You are a liar.
W
All Bad
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:17780c41-5a52-4efe...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:26 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them." - Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Yes it is. juan Cole never said what you attributed to him.
>
> Yes, he did. He told me and several other people that you were
> possibly a mole for the AO-holes. I dare him to say otherwise!
>
AB: Maybe Mark Foster heard it? I doubt very much that Juan will come
here, but Mark Foster and others have come here to correct the fictions
being attributed to them.
AB: Wahid, do you know what Paul Hammond wrote about you?
"First, I do believe,that Nima is a lying bullshitter who doesn't give a
shit about the facts"
- Paul Hammond,
- All Bad
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 18, 4:07 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
>
> > he didn't say it.
>
> Yes, he did.
>
No, he didn't. And he didn't say it about Dermod either.
>
> > We haven't fallen out -
>
> Yes, you have. You are a liar.
>
What makes you say that we fell out? Do you know what our falling out
was meant to involve?
Paul
NUR
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I'm pretty much an honest and open
> person who answers questions
LOL!!! ROFLMAO!!!
NUR
"Pat Kohli LIES about his identity on SourceWatch"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/3b43eeee8c7f768c
On Mar 18, 10:26 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote: