Undermining the integrity of the Teachings
Rod
Ryder, all of whom are no longer members of the Baha\'i community, have long
exhibited highly critical attitudes toward the institutions of the Faith.
It is clear from various postings on the Internet that Ms. Bacquet manifests
a deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith. Mr. Glaysher
and Mr. Hazini have both, over a period of time, taken a number of actions
inimical to the Faith. They both seem bent on their own personal campaigns
to undermine the integrity of the Teachings and institutions of the Cause in
the minds of persons unwise enough to take them seriously."
As a Baha'i I have known the above named miscreants and malcontents,
through their Internet activities, for some years now. I do not share
all/many
of their views on the Baha'i Faith. I do share their interest, concern,
desire
to discuss and debate, openness and inquiry, humour and humanity.
Whatever their faults (no doubt myriad;-), in the time I have conversed
with them they have never slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely
accused
or (without cause or explanation) subjected me to viscous criticism.
None of the above named have ever made against me- baseless allegations
in the public domain- of anti Baha'i, unethical or criminal activity.
None of the above named have ever treated the basic principles of
consultation and debate with ongoing contempt.
None of the above named have, in their discussions with me, made evasion,
innuendo, obfuscation, cut'n'paste misrepresentation, assumptions of psychic
ability or outright lie their consistent stock in trade.
In a nut shell....I have found the above named to be honest, open,
responsive,
thoughtful, humorous and decent human beings.
By contrast I have found the online Baha'i community to be predominantly-
dishonest, closed, unresponsive, dull, grumpy and fanatical human beings.
Does this make me an enemy of the Baha'i Faith?
By the consistent and demonstrable record of the archives (Bnut, ARB, TRB)
it is clear that (through open allegation and ongoing innuendo) I will be
considered
as nothing other than "enemy'.
I am left with a choice as to whom I am to be associated with...those who
claim
to reflect and defend the Faith through lie, innuendo and false
allegation....or those
who critique and criticise the Faith without consistently stooping to such
slimy
personalised attack.
Henceforth my 'Faith' is my business...private...I will not bother
attempting to explain or
justify my relationship to God or His Cause.
My public association however cannot/will not be with those who display such
callous
disregard for honesty, decency and justice.
I will have no part in any shunning (implicit or implied) of -Ms. Karen
Bacquet,
Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr. Dermod Ryder....I happen
to like them and have good cause for doing so.
If the issue is forced and I am obliged to play 'Survivor'....you may
keep/extradite
the likes of Manic, Kohli, Joplin, Effy/Pith and Dust....I desire no tribal
or community
alliance with such lying shitpigs.
I shun them gladly and stand prepared to show good cause for doing so.
What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
Dishonesty?
Rod Wicks.
Sekhmet
>What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
>Dishonesty?
In your case, how about "Unity in Hypocrisy"? Fred and Nima in particular have
"slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely accused" etc. all sorts of people,
but as long as they haven't done it to you, personally, then they're the good
guys?
Whatever...
--Sekhmet
reli...@yahoo.com
sekhm...@aol.com.nz wrote on 20/1/04 11:00 pm:
> Rod wrote:
>> What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
>> Dishonesty?
>
> In your case, how about "Unity in Hypocrisy"? Fred and Nima in particular have
> "slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely accused" etc. all sorts of
> people,but as long as they haven't done it to you, personally, then they're
> the good guys? Whatever...
Strong accusations Sekhmet, hows about inclosing the documented
evidence to support your claim. Dont you Bahai's always want us
ex-bahais to produce a Bahai writing to prove our claim in any
challenge against your Faith?
Or am I still in your killfile like Rod is in Pats killfile because we
are spirtual corrosive and downright inhuman to talk
to?.................RP
>
> --Sekhmet
Mark
You must be on another newsgroup other than TRB. Slander, name calling,
intimidation, lying, and other numerous qualities one would expect from
'miscreants and malcontents' have been the mainstay of TRB for years. I've
been reading this newsgroup for that long and it's fact............. not
fiction.
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:400d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ms. Karen Bacquet, Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr. Dermod
> Ryder, all of whom are no longer members of the Baha\'i community, have
long
> exhibited highly critical attitudes toward the institutions of the Faith.
> It is clear from various postings on the Internet that Ms. Bacquet
manifests
> a deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith. Mr.
Glaysher
> and Mr. Hazini have both, over a period of time, taken a number of actions
> inimical to the Faith. They both seem bent on their own personal
campaigns
> to undermine the integrity of the Teachings and institutions of the Cause
in
> the minds of persons unwise enough to take them seriously."
>
> As a Baha'i I have known the above named miscreants and malcontents,
> through their Internet activities, for some years now. I do not share
> all/many
> of their views on the Baha'i Faith. I do share their interest, concern,
> desire
> to discuss and debate, openness and inquiry, humour and humanity.
Humour when it is achieved at someone else's expense, is not humour but
slander. Humanity is not a a term applicable when describing this bunch.
It's not there intent to be humane......... just degrading generally.
> Whatever their faults (no doubt myriad;-), in the time I have conversed
> with them they have never slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely
> accused
> or (without cause or explanation) subjected me to viscous criticism.
Gee........... you're lucky. I guess when they do those things to everyone
else.............. it's OK with you??
>
> None of the above named have ever made against me- baseless allegations
> in the public domain- of anti Baha'i, unethical or criminal activity.
> None of the above named have ever treated the basic principles of
> consultation and debate with ongoing contempt.
> None of the above named have, in their discussions with me, made evasion,
> innuendo, obfuscation, cut'n'paste misrepresentation, assumptions of
psychic
> ability or outright lie their consistent stock in trade.
>
> In a nut shell....I have found the above named to be honest, open,
> responsive,
> thoughtful, humorous and decent human beings.
> By contrast I have found the online Baha'i community to be predominantly-
> dishonest, closed, unresponsive, dull, grumpy and fanatical human beings.
Of course I'm grumpy with this bunch. I didn't used to be........... but now
it's the only takeable approach. Some Baha'is whom have managed to stick
around, have manged to compromise themselves in order to remain 'regular' .
> Does this make me an enemy of the Baha'i Faith?
> By the consistent and demonstrable record of the archives (Bnut, ARB, TRB)
> it is clear that (through open allegation and ongoing innuendo) I will be
> considered
> as nothing other than "enemy'.
I don't consider you an enemy. You haven't done or said anything negative to
me or about me.........If you decide to take the same approach as the others
you've named, then I might change my mind to those opinions. I realise that
my opinion probably doesn't mean spit to you.........but it's an open forum.
It's been proved time and time again........... anything goes on this
newsgroup................. there are no rules.
>
> I am left with a choice as to whom I am to be associated with...those who
> claim
> to reflect and defend the Faith through lie, innuendo and false
> allegation....or those
> who critique and criticise the Faith without consistently stooping to such
> slimy
> personalised attack.
>
> Henceforth my 'Faith' is my business...private...I will not bother
> attempting to explain or
> justify my relationship to God or His Cause.
> My public association however cannot/will not be with those who display
such
> callous
> disregard for honesty, decency and justice.
>
> I will have no part in any shunning (implicit or implied) of -Ms. Karen
> Bacquet,
> Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr. Dermod Ryder....I happen
> to like them and have good cause for doing so
You are perfectly right in saying that your 'faith' is your business. You
are also perfectly free to act, say and or do anything you wish............
In the real world though, there are consequences for some and or all of
these things.
> If the issue is forced and I am obliged to play 'Survivor'....you may
> keep/extradite
> the likes of Manic, Kohli, Joplin, Effy/Pith and Dust....I desire no
tribal
> or community
> alliance with such lying shitpigs.
> I shun them gladly and stand prepared to show good cause for doing so.
It does seem that you are perfecly free to use the laguage you wish and to
direct that language to those you wish. Just be prepared to live in the
world of just consequences for your actions.
Nothing that happens on this Newsgroup has any significant effect on the
rest of the Baha'i Community. I am sure of that. It has become a dismal
place with mindless rantings for the most part. It's a shame when something
really good and interesting comes along.................. no-one really
notices it anymore. Anyhow.......... thanks for listening. I'm sure the
onslaught will follow..............
> What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
> Dishonesty?
>
> Rod Wicks.
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 9/01/2004
Dermod Ryder
"Mark" <rif...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:400dcaba$0$26113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Rod.....
> You must be on another newsgroup other than TRB. Slander, name calling,
> intimidation, lying, and other numerous qualities one would expect from
> 'miscreants and malcontents' have been the mainstay of TRB for years. I've
> been reading this newsgroup for that long and it's fact............. not
> fiction.
And you don't understand BNW? Full marks for comprehension!
But you have at least recognised the qualities of the A Onion - slander,
(should be libel actually but as you're an undoubted idiot, I'll pass on
calling you for it), intimidation (by ABMs), name calling (as in Covenant
Breaker), lying ("Entry by Troops and all that jazz) ... yes indeed, the A
ONions are miscreants and malcontents ... as well as utterly bereft of any
moral fibre.
***** Bahai Faith *****
Do you know the author and source of the quotation below? Have the
full text?
I appreciate your balanced views. Thanks. There's only one
creative coinage I urge you to reconsider (it plays into the
fundamentalists' hands with those who aren't familiar with
their extensive dishonesties and deceptions).
Pre-Hutton report positioning....
Best,
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:400d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"Ms. Karen Bacquet, Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr. Dermod
responsive,thoughtful, humorous and decent human beings.
By contrast I have found the online Baha'i community to be predominantly-
dishonest, closed, unresponsive, dull, grumpy and fanatical human beings.
Does this make me an enemy of the Baha'i Faith?
By the consistent and demonstrable record of the archives (Bnut, ARB, TRB)
it is clear that (through open allegation and ongoing innuendo) I will be
consideredas nothing other than "enemy'.
I am left with a choice as to whom I am to be associated with...those who
claimto reflect and defend the Faith through lie, innuendo and false
allegation....or thosewho critique and criticise the Faith without
Rod
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.04012...@posting.google.com...
> in article 20040120180036...@mb-m18.aol.com, Sekhmet at
> sekhm...@aol.com.nz wrote on 20/1/04 11:00 pm:
I cannot, as yet, see the orriginal Sekhmet post.
> > Rod wrote:
> >> What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
> >> Dishonesty?
> >
> > In your case, how about "Unity in Hypocrisy"? Fred and Nima in
particular have
> > "slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely accused" etc. all sorts of
> > people,but as long as they haven't done it to you, personally, then
they're
> > the good guys? Whatever...
No. Not at all. Nice 'Straw Man' though.
I never felt (as a Baha'i) that I had any right to publicly exhort a non
Baha'i to
greater standards of moral/ethical behaviour nor did I feel that I had the
leverage
of a shared cosmology to facilitate doing so.
My objective/duty *was* to exhort Baha'is to at least maintain the standards
of 'common decency' if not the exulted standards of the Baha'i writings.
Time and time again the online Baha'is have demonstrated contempt for
even the most basic ethical/moral principles and have made what was once
a sad misnomer-'The Baha'i Technique- a stark and unavoidable reality.
"Hypocrisy"? Are you not the same Sekhmet who put their hand up as one
who claimed to have stood on principle and objected to false allegation only
to have it subsequently revealed that you made no such
intervention/objection?
Are you not the same Sekmet who found subject matter worthy of discussion
but could not muster a single word in regard Joplins enemy of the faith
allegations?
Baha'is do not defend any standard or principle other than- "Who do I deem
to
be an 'on side' Baha'i team player"....anyone else is a 'non person' who may
be
subjected to any charge they wish to manufacture.
> Strong accusations Sekhmet,
No. A piss weak retaliatory shot in the dark that ignores and seeks to
distract from
the core issues.
> hows about inclosing the documented evidence to support your claim.
'Substantiation' means nothing to the online Baha'i apologist...their
objective
is to simply make noise.
Ask for substantiation and they ignore it, provide substantiation and they
ignore it.
Baha'i debate is very much like Baha'i judicial process- claim anything...
prove nothing.
Rod
> You must be on another newsgroup other than TRB. Slander, name calling,
> intimidation, lying, and other numerous qualities one would expect from
> 'miscreants and malcontents' have been the mainstay of TRB for years. I've
> been reading this newsgroup for that long and it's fact............. not
> fiction.
You miss/ignore the central/vital issue- "Slander, name calling,
intimidation, lying, "
are common to most NG's, they are the 'norm' and can be generally ignored,
laughed
off or shot back.
What non Baha'is/ex Baha'is say reflects upon and impacts NOTHING other than
their own reputation.
The serious allegations, lies and slanders made by Baha'is against Baha'is
impacts
on EVERYTHING of any consequence.
Nima saying he is going to London from Oz to punch Paul is just rude
improbable
bullshit that will come to naught and reflects nothing but Nimas punch
drunk
pugilist obsession.
Susan M calling me a "cyberstalker" is an allegation of criminal activity,
along with
the allegations of anti faith alliance it has an impact that goes well
beyond this NG
and effects an individuals Faith and community relationships.
I have sought to facilitate discussion on the distinctions between 'insult'
and serious
allegations for years.....it is a complete waste of time...Baha'is cannot
distinguish
and don't want to know. They would rather bandy about any bogus allegation
that
comes to mind, refuse any call for substantiation and ignore the
consequences of
their slander.
The gallery of Baha'i lurkers will "Tut tut" and "Oh my" at 'foul language'
and vitriol
from non Baha'is.......and then they will turn a blind eye to the most
heinous allegations
made by fellow Baha'is. The Links provided by both myself and Backflip Pat
in the
'Enemies of the Faith'? threads confirm this assertion beyond a shadow of a
doubt.
If you have been "reading this newsgroup for that long " then you have had
every
opportunity to respond to those serious intra Baha'i slanders that fall
within the province
of responsibility and concern to members of the Baha'i community.
So what's the matter Captain? Telescope to blind eye?
See no Baha'i shits?
Rod.
Sekhmet
> I never felt (as a Baha'i) that I had any right to publicly exhort a non
>Baha'i to
>greater standards of moral/ethical behaviour nor did I feel that I had
>the
>leverage
> of a shared cosmology to facilitate doing so.
Okay.
>My objective/duty *was* to exhort Baha'is to at least maintain the standards
>of 'common decency' if not the exulted standards of the Baha'i writings.
>Time and time again the online Baha'is have demonstrated contempt for
>even the most basic ethical/moral principles and have made what was once
>a sad misnomer-'The Baha'i Technique- a stark and unavoidable reality.
All of us?
>"Hypocrisy"? Are you not the same Sekhmet who put their hand up as one
>who claimed to have stood on principle and objected to false allegation
>only
>to have it subsequently revealed that you made no such
>intervention/objection?
Nope. In the only incident of that kind that I can remember, it was confirmed
that I had indeed done as I had claimed, despite false allegations to the
contrary.
>Are you not the same Sekmet who found subject matter worthy of discussion
>but could not muster a single word in regard Joplins enemy of the faith
>allegations?
Nope. I don't recall any "Sekmet" doing that, although I do recall taking a bit
of flack from a certain Joplin for asking him to tone down his ad homs against
you and others.
>Baha'is do not defend any standard or principle other than- "Who do I deem
>to
>be an 'on side' Baha'i team player"....anyone else is a 'non person' who
>may
>be
>subjected to any charge they wish to manufacture.
Bullcookies.
>> Strong accusations Sekhmet,
>
>No. A piss weak retaliatory shot in the dark that ignores and seeks to
>distract from
> the core issues.
Highly fragrant bullcookies.
>> hows about inclosing the documented evidence to support your claim.
>
>'Substantiation' means nothing to the online Baha'i apologist...their
>objective
>is to simply make noise.
>Ask for substantiation and they ignore it, provide substantiation and they
>ignore it.
>Baha'i debate is very much like Baha'i judicial process- claim anything...
>prove nothing.
Where's your substantiation of your accusations about me, as quoted above?
--Sekhmet
Susan Maneck
>It's not there intent to be humane......... just degrading generally.
When have you ever seen Karen degrade anyone?
Rod writes:
>> Whatever their faults (no doubt myriad;-), in the time I have conversed
>> with them they have never slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely
>> accused
>> or (without cause or explanation) subjected me to viscous criticism.
That's your problem, Rod. You imagine everything revolves around how you are
treated.
>the likes of Manic, Kohli, Joplin, Effy/Pith and Dust....I desire no
>tribal
>> or community
>> alliance with such lying shitpigs.
>> I shun them gladly and stand prepared to show good cause for doing so.
Could I get so lucky?
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Susan Maneck
>Do you know the author and source of the quotation below?
Hellooo? Where has he been?
Mark
> You miss/ignore the central/vital issue- "Slander, name calling,
> intimidation, lying, "
> are common to most NG's, they are the 'norm' and can be generally ignored,
> laughed
> off or shot back.
I am afraid that what you reffering to as 'norm' didn't use to be the norm
here a few years ago........
Since I don't wish to honor any of these folks with anykind of response, I
guess I'll leave it at that.
It's a shame you have allowed yourself to have such low expectations and
then want to put it on your 'norm' shelf. Believe me mate............ you'll
add years to your age with this bunch.
Freethought110
> "Ms. Karen Bacquet, Mr. Frederick Glaysher, Mr. Nima Hazini and Mr. Dermod
> Ryder, all of whom are no longer members of the Baha\'i community, have long
> exhibited highly critical attitudes toward the institutions of the Faith.
> It is clear from various postings on the Internet that Ms. Bacquet manifests
> a deep-seated antagonism toward the institutions of the Faith. Mr. Glaysher
> and Mr. Hazini have both, over a period of time, taken a number of actions
> inimical to the Faith. They both seem bent on their own personal campaigns
> to undermine the integrity of the Teachings and institutions of the Cause in
> the minds of persons unwise enough to take them seriously."
I think this means we are INDEED taken VERY seriously which is why the
Infernal House of Supreme Adamant Ignorant Stupidity would deign to
compose its typical ho-hum screed of "leave them to themselves'. But I
am indeed heartened, nay gladdened immeasurably, that the
Baytu'l-Jahl-e Asghar-e Shaytani has reminded its flock once more to
shun yours truly. I would like it to be stated for the record that I
wish to be shunned by BIGS and left to my own devices. That means, if
you see me on the street, kindly remove yourself from my side of the
street onto the other side. If I see your most abhorent presences on
my side first, I shall reciprocate the gesture. Since we Bayanis shun
baha'is as a matter of course, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank the Baytu'l-Zolm-e Kabir for making my job that much easier
for me.
Ya Sahib-e Zaman! Ya Quddus! Ya Quds al-Azal!
Rod
>
> > You miss/ignore the central/vital issue- "Slander, name calling,
> > intimidation, lying, "
> > are common to most NG's, they are the 'norm' and can be generally
ignored,
> > laughed
> > off or shot back.
> Rod.......
> I am afraid that what you reffering to as 'norm' didn't use to be the norm
> here a few years ago........
'Norms' change.
The archive evidence overwhelmingly supports the assertion that the current
environments and norms have been established by those seeking to practice
the 'Baha'i tecnique'- playing the man not the ball- slander, defamation,
vilification
etc.
> Since I don't wish to honor any of these folks with anykind of response, I
> guess I'll leave it at that.
Good for you, shun and run, another fine example set.
> It's a shame you have allowed yourself to have such low expectations and
> then want to put it on your 'norm' shelf.
LOL! Look back through google to the early days when I was 'Curious'...
expectations neither high nor low...simply seeking consultation on justice
provision in my community of faith. Result? Accusation after accusation
of being an enemy of the Baha'i faith...year after year of slander and
lie...
futile attempts to garner even the most basic of courtesys- an explanation.
It's a shame I have allowed my expectations to sink?
You have met my current expectations flawlessly....you say nothing to the
core issues and blame me for describing verifiable events.If you wish to
remain true to form/norm then having offered some psuedo spiritual
platitudes about tests and the failure to maintain a radient heart in the
face of abusive behaviours you ought retire to the comfort of the
gallery.
> Believe me mate............ you'll add years to your age with this bunch.
My "mates" don't stand idle/silent while others publicly slander me.
Nor would my "mates" stand silent/idle if, without cause or explanation, I
attempted to publicly slander another.
That's the very core of 'mateship'....to act on principle, to stand by your
mate when he is subject to unwarranted assault- to let him know when he
is attacking another without cause.
You are not my mate.
You do nothing to earn/deserve the title.
I have seen nothing within the online Baha'i community that indicates any
understanding of 'mateship', comradeship or fellowship.
Having experienced this 'community'......I hold no desire for longevity.
Rod.
Paul Hammond
> sekhm...@aol.com.nz wrote on 20/1/04 11:00 pm:
>
> > Rod wrote:
> >> What "integrity of the Teachings" will you argue now......Unity in
> >> Dishonesty?
> >
> > In your case, how about "Unity in Hypocrisy"? Fred and Nima in particular have
> > "slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely accused" etc. all sorts of
> > people,but as long as they haven't done it to you, personally, then they're
> > the good guys? Whatever...
>
> Strong accusations Sekhmet, hows about inclosing the documented
> evidence to support your claim.
Error, you have *joined in* on Nima's vilification campaign
against me.
Fred also has told lies about me, though he doesn't do it
often.
Can't you just keep your big gob shut, dogbreath?
Or, if you're so keen on evidence, how about you prevail
on your former enemy, now big buddy No. 1, to provide
evidence for the year-long vilification campaign he has
engaged in around here about me?
Seriously, Error, do you come here with your eyes closed?
Sheesh!
> Or am I still in your killfile like Rod is in Pats killfile because we
> are spirtual corrosive and downright inhuman to talk
> to?.................RP
If anyone thinks you are inhuman, they only have to look
at your record on vilifying Dr Kelly, and trying to
shut Robin up by trading on the terror of catholic
victims of child abuse to see that it is true.
Really, really poor, gobshite.
Paul
Dermod Ryder
"Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.0401...@posting.google.com...
> I would like it to be stated for the record that I
> wish to be shunned by BIGS and left to my own devices. That means, if
> you see me on the street, kindly remove yourself from my side of the
> street onto the other side. If I see your most abhorent presences on
> my side first, I shall reciprocate the gesture. Since we Bayanis shun
> baha'is as a matter of course, I would like to take this opportunity
> to thank the Baytu'l-Zolm-e Kabir for making my job that much easier
> for me.
I assume that non-BIGS, fellow members of the Gang of Four are not included
in this and that you will converse with us.
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 21/1/04 3:28 pm:
>> Strong accusations Sekhmet, hows about inclosing the documented
>> evidence to support your claim.
>
> Error, you have *joined in* on Nima's vilification campaign
> against me.
And my dear Baldrick has not said one nasty word against Nima or
myself to justify any vilification campaign against him. Hmmmmmmmmmmm:
Ofcourse Baldrick's dosnt know any better because where he came from
his father was called Robin the Dung Gatherer. In turn, Baldrick
waited for years before himself becoming a dung-shoveller. It's an
enviable career, apparently, with more applicants than vacancies. RP
Dermod Ryder
I think you've lost the plot, Error, and not for the first time. 'Tis
yourself is the Baldrick of this group so thanks for the autobiographical
detail.
Susan Maneck
>I assume that non-BIGS, fellow members of the Gang of Four are not included
>in this and that you will converse with us.
>
Lucky you.
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040121154816...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >
> >I assume that non-BIGS, fellow members of the Gang of Four are not
included
> >in this and that you will converse with us.
> >
>
> Lucky you.
Yup! Ain't it great to be lucky!
Mark
> My "mates" don't stand idle/silent while others publicly slander me.
> Nor would my "mates" stand silent/idle if, without cause or explanation, I
> attempted to publicly slander another.
> That's the very core of 'mateship'....to act on principle, to stand by
your
> mate when he is subject to unwarranted assault- to let him know when he
> is attacking another without cause.
>
> You are not my mate.
> You do nothing to earn/deserve the title.
> I have seen nothing within the online Baha'i community that indicates any
> understanding of 'mateship', comradeship or fellowship.
I don't remember having said or having done anything to you.............
sorry about the word 'mate'. I'm afraid it's a common expression here Down
Under. I'm not or have I offered you any platitudes or slander. Let's just
say .............. You have developed your opinions and I........... mine.
I'll try not to share any more of them with you.
Now....
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 8/01/2004
Freethought110
Sure. But converse only :)
Mark
what Susie says. She doesn't represent me and or any Baha'is that I know. I
get the feeling that Susie thinks she represents the Baha'is in some way or
another............ but the truth is apparent.................. Susie only
represents herself. I represent myself...........etc.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 8/01/2004
Rod
> Rod writes:
>
> >> Whatever their faults (no doubt myriad;-), in the time I have conversed
> >> with them they have never slandered, lied, vilified, defamed, falsely
> >> accused
> >> or (without cause or explanation) subjected me to viscous criticism.
>
> That's your problem, Rod. You imagine everything revolves around how you are
> treated.
LOL! Silly me....Here was I thinking the core of spiritual practice
was
how one "treats" others.
You do not (can not) deny that you have "slandered, lied, vilified,
defamed, falsely accused (without cause or explanation)" you simply
admonish me
for expecting that I/anyone should be treated otherwise.
Perhaps your demonstrable and stated disinterest in how people are
treated
stems from your stated understanding of "spirituality" in which
everything
is "metaphysical" and the material is imaterial.
Your cosmology is certainly reflected in your behaviour....you
couldn't
give a rats arse for any one or anything other than your own inflated
ego.
> >the likes of Manic, Kohli, Joplin, Effy/Pith and Dust....I desire no
> >tribal
> >> or community
> >> alliance with such lying shitpigs.
> >> I shun them gladly and stand prepared to show good cause for doing so.
>
> Could I get so lucky?
The only way you would "get lucky" is if every man at Jackson went
deaf, dumb and blind and it rained Viagra for a thousand years.
Rod
> Rod wrote:
> > I never felt (as a Baha'i) that I had any right to publicly exhort a non
> >Baha'i to
> >greater standards of moral/ethical behaviour nor did I feel that I had
> >the
> >leverage
> > of a shared cosmology to facilitate doing so.
>
> Okay.
>
> >My objective/duty *was* to exhort Baha'is to at least maintain the standards
> >of 'common decency' if not the exulted standards of the Baha'i writings.
> >Time and time again the online Baha'is have demonstrated contempt for
> >even the most basic ethical/moral principles and have made what was once
> >a sad misnomer-'The Baha'i Technique- a stark and unavoidable reality.
>
> All of us?
The vast majority, most of the time. A handfull play dirty pool, the
rest are content to sit back and smirk.
> >"Hypocrisy"? Are you not the same Sekhmet who put their hand up as one
> >who claimed to have stood on principle and objected to false allegation
> >only
> >to have it subsequently revealed that you made no such
> >intervention/objection?
>
> Nope. In the only incident of that kind that I can remember, it was confirmed
> that I had indeed done as I had claimed, despite false allegations to the
> contrary.
Apoligies. T'was another I was thinking of.
> >Are you not the same Sekmet who found subject matter worthy of discussion
> >but could not muster a single word in regard Joplins enemy of the faith
> >allegations?
>
> Nope. I don't recall any "Sekmet" doing that, although I do recall taking a
> bit of flack from a certain Joplin for asking him to tone down his ad homs
> against you and others.
Odd....My recolection is of Joplins open and repeated enemy of the
faith
accusation standing on the boards in more than one thread without any
question, challenge or objection from any BIGS Baha'i.
I would be most interested in seeing otherwise.
> >Baha'is do not defend any standard or principle other than- "Who do I deem
> >to
> >be an 'on side' Baha'i team player"....anyone else is a 'non person' who
> >may
> >be
> >subjected to any charge they wish to manufacture.
>
> Bullcookies.
No. An assertion supported by a host of thread links I have already
put forward and substantiated by further threads Kohli put forward
to demonstrate Baha'is standing on principle to defend against bogus
allegations. On examination Kohli's threads all (bar one) revealed
that
no such principled stance ever transpired. What all the threads
clearly
showed was a pattern of serious allegations being made by a handfull
of
Baha'i fanatics being ignored or granted tacit support from the
gallery.
See 'Enemies of the Faith' thread.
Or was "Bullcookies" the strongest and most articulate arguement you
could muster?
> >> Strong accusations Sekhmet,
> >
> >No. A piss weak retaliatory shot in the dark that ignores and seeks to
> >distract from
> > the core issues.
>
> Highly fragrant bullcookies.
You are welcome to attempt over ride of your adolescent non response
and
provide evidence of your having responded to the core issues.
> >> hows about inclosing the documented evidence to support your claim.
> >
> >'Substantiation' means nothing to the online Baha'i apologist...their
> >objective
> >is to simply make noise.
> >Ask for substantiation and they ignore it, provide substantiation and they
> >ignore it.
> >Baha'i debate is very much like Baha'i judicial process- claim anything...
> >prove nothing.
>
> Where's your substantiation of your accusations about me, as quoted above?
Which accusation? That you have ignored the core issues? Review the
thread
for yourself.
That you (along with other online Baha'is) are prepared to ignore
allegations
of anti Baha'i or even criminal activity?
Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
participant stood
up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
Go figure.
Proove otherwise.
Rod.
Freethought110
> treated
> stems from your stated understanding of "spirituality" in which
> everything
> is "metaphysical" and the material is imaterial.
Actually, it doesn't. Dr Maniac is a professed nominalist where even
spirituality is a nominal endeavour. No wonder she worships at the alter of
a bureaucracy. That's the only thing she understands of transcedence, i.e.
the sleazey bureaucratic office politics of a pathetic mafia cult.
Spirituality to her and sideshow Kholi is about lying, deceit,
bamboozlement, treachery, false appearances, ad nauseum. Go figure,
nominalism....
Rod
> > My "mates" don't stand idle/silent while others publicly slander me.
> > Nor would my "mates" stand silent/idle if, without cause or explanation, I
> > attempted to publicly slander another.
> > That's the very core of 'mateship'....to act on principle, to stand by
> your
> > mate when he is subject to unwarranted assault- to let him know when he
> > is attacking another without cause.
> >
> > You are not my mate.
> > You do nothing to earn/deserve the title.
> > I have seen nothing within the online Baha'i community that indicates any
> > understanding of 'mateship', comradeship or fellowship.
>
> I don't remember having said or having done anything to you.............
You responded to my post, I to yours, I never claimed you had "done" anything.
If anything my assertion was that the Baha'i Internet lurker 'does nothing'
even when abuse transpires.
I see from latest posts you have 'done something'....well done...you have
become the exception to the rule.
> sorry about the word 'mate'.
No apology necessary....then it was unearned...now you are entitled ;-)
> I'm afraid it's a common expression here Down Under.
So it is...either a passing/all embracing general 'mate'....or indicative
of a specific precious and personal relationship.....I was refering to the
latter...... mate ;-)
> I'm not or have I offered you any platitudes or slander.
It's early in the day.....let's wait and see ;-)
> Let's just
> say .............. You have developed your opinions and I........... mine.
> I'll try not to share any more of them with you.
Oh your welcome to share away (or not) as you please Mark.
You have entered the fray at the point of my complete disassociation
from the Baha'i community...a community I have served for twenty years.
My "opinions" of the online Baha'i community are substantiated by
the archives....they show a body of fundamentalists, fanatics, liars,
spivs, wankers and pissants. I wouldn't give you the steam off my
shit for the lot of them.
Rod. South West Vic, Down Under.
Rod
> Just as a another snipit of info............. not all Baha'is give a squat
> what Susie says.
Your right Mark...there are two, perhaps three, who over the years have
cared and responded to her abhorent behaviour....the rest, as you observe,
don't give a shit and will let her (and those like her) get away with
anything. No allegation from Susan is to big or to bogus for the majority
to ignore.
> She doesn't represent me and or any Baha'is that I know.
I disagree...and my disagreement is based on years of online discussions
in which Susans propensity to accuse (openly or through innuendo)is reflected
by other fundamentalist Baha'is. So too the evasiveness, the glib, trite
smarmy non answer, the drive by 'blipvert' of one line innuendo, the refusal
to stand and defend/justify/explain any attack or allegation, the retreat
into cowards killfile when her dishonesty is exposed.....all these are
common features of what has been described as the Baha'i Technique. I
did not believe such a phenomena could exist when I first came online...
today the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable.
Susan M perfectly reflects all that is worst about contemporary
Baha'i culture...'they' know it and love her for it.
> I get the feeling that Susie thinks she represents the Baha'is in some way or
> another.
No....Manic and fundamentalist co workers do not simply "represent" the
Baha'i community...they *ARE* the community...their identification is
total/complete. Any criticism of any aspect of Baha'i is percieved by
Manic and Co as a direct personal attack and they respond by attacking
the individual rather than the arguement. They will invent and
manufacture 'enemies of the faith', 'voilators of the Covenant' and
even stoop to open allegations of criminal activity.
The AO cannot possibly be deaf, dumb and blind to this activity any
more than the online Baha'i gallery and lurkers are blind to it.
It is granted approuval, formal or informal, open or tacit...it matters
not.
> but the truth is apparent...Susie only represents herself.
The truth is apparent in examination of the facts...the facts are
available in review of the archives...the archives reveal incident
after incident/event after event in which Susan (or co fundamentalist)
levels a basless and unprovoked serious allegation, refuses substantiation,
hides behind glib and evasive bullshit and/or killfile and receives
open or tacit support for doing so.
Susan represents a prevailing culture of abuse, slander, denial and
evasion.
> I represent myself...........etc.
No....you represent the first Baha'i bunny in donkeys ages to step
forward raise tentative and mild objection...if you dare stay out and
on your horse they will get you for your antipodean audacity....mate.
Rod.
Sekhmet
>Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
>Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
>participant stood
>up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
>
>Go figure.
>Proove otherwise.
Your recollection is a bit faulty, but frankly I don't feel it's worth the
bother of doing any research to correct it, having seen your responses to
similar research performed by Pat.
--Sekhmet
reli...@yahoo.com
sekhm...@aol.com.nz wrote on 22/1/04 7:24 am:
I think Rod's response to Pat Kohli in the post below was just
magnifico, superb and wonderful. I am sure Rod has made many poor
liberal Bahais who Pat Kohli ruthlessly hammered over the years very
happy with this post. Its so good I might get it blown up framed and
hang it over a whole wall in my bedroom so I can wake up to read it
every morning
RP
From: Rod <kas...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
Subject: Pat K, A joke...
Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
Pont by bloody point-
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=8ccded73.0309140328.3d2ad143%40posting.google.com&rnum=45
You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
post...and
months
later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not already
been
debunked.
Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bullshit here-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>
> So what's changed Pat?
>
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli.
You do not deny what all recognised at the time...you simply claim
that
because I chased her
for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it.
Your irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I
cry
"stop thief! explain
yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at Beliefnet, not
nice"....then
when I pursue her you
claim the pursuit negates the crime.
For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him. For exactly
the
same reason I
persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their vitriol and
accusations, none in the
Baha'i apologist gallery would object to their abhorrent
behaviour....and....in the end...
having had all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my
face....it was the
hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment in which
they
dared not
do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
wristed
such as yourself.
.> you'll be writing me from the killfile.
So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
core
points made,
you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts, you recycle
old
arguments long
answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta, I won't be responding to you"
then
you pop up
with the same tired shite.
I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point by
laborious
point every time
you put it up (see below) you go right ahead and crawl under your
killfile
rock with Susan.
It is the surest confirmation of the complete defeat of your
intelectual
inadequacy and
ethical deficiency..
> The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'. I've
> pointed that out to you before.
The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
"nasty"
flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
ignore/dismiss
as "All good clean fun so far"
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded73.030914
0328.3d2ad143%40posting.google.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DEnemies%2Bof%2B
Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.0309140328.3d2ad143%2
540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5
> Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
discourteous,
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
Pat K, recognising and articulating the repetition of the enemy of
faith
allegations on Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical
revision spin doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..
>your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
> another league from an intemperate remark.
An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan.
I did not begin a personalised flame war with Susan.
I did not precede these events with post after post of blatant
misrepresentation.
I did not refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position
nor resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor
follow
with killfile.
I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to ascertain the origin
and rationale behind her allegation, flame and personalised attack and
received naught but further allegation/abuse.
I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
resolution
through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans rules' well
before ever stooping to do so.
You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
I am
in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked
EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).
"libelings of " Susan? When someone attempts to steal from me I shout
"stop thief" and pursue them when they flee.
You stand in the gutter moaning- "Thief is a libellous charge" and
"You
pursue the alleged too vigorously".
"Do we do this with others"?PK
Time after time after time.
"It is not good"PK
It sucks
> Here is a quote from September 2003,
Great...you quote your own analysis of what transpired as further
screen
to any examination of actually transpired.
What's more you quote from the *One* post of yours on this issue that
I did not respond to....The reason I neglected to respond to the post
you cite is because I could not decide between-"Beneath contempt Pat"
and "Fuck off Pat".
It was, and remains, the saddest lamest contribution you have made on
any issue and the fact that you would choose to link to it now (as
evidence
of anything other than total blind bias) simply stuns me.
>when I was looking at the origins of your flamings of Susan Maneck,
Your own language reveals and betrays you...You went looking for
the origins of my flaming Susan and turned a blind eye to every
occasion
she employed unprovoked ad hom.
> "Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message,
Snip
I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your
analysis of what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument,
fail to respond to the post and subsequently return to repeat the
nonsense.
> and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,
Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.
> Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
> guys",
Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn.
Go back and count the number of times I was obliged
to say- "I didn't say that Susan" and factor that into your
biased misrepresentation.
> you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
> various allegations which you would make up.
The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan
over?
> I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
> allegations which I made up for them,
No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
never
happened because I pursued her over it.
>AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just
attribute
it right
> back to their intentions.
Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
it,
she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
provided
further
confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to respond to)
> >
> > > I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
> >
> > No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you said
> > so at the time.
>
> There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
>What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
> worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.
An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that
Susans original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way
"changed" by my subsequent pursuit of her.
Your argument is inane, insane and morally bankrupt.
> > You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
> > completely
> > when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to substantiate)
> > I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
> >
>
> Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put words in
> my mouth.
Your words-
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
From your big mouth.
Reality from post record checked and confirmed.
> Speak for yourself. If you think I said
> something, go ahead and look it up!
Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
make it cease to exist.
> As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
> inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
> Bnet.
We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
reality
check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
recognised
reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we
all saw.
> However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behaviour in
>the matter:
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
> B-Net,
So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!?
Neither of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged
jackass insult was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated
requests (to Susan) it remained (as did yours) just one of a string
of ad homs devoid of any justification/explanation.
So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.
> That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
> hypocrite:
Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.
> But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha ha.
Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
Here is part of the replay-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>
> So what's changed Pat?
>
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
> I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,
The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
cowards
killfile?
A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.
>you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
> fabrications are pointed out to you.
Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
rebuttals
that you must resort to killfile to avoid.
I have knocked down your every point and every equivocation at every
turn....you have not even responded to the points raised in my last
post
and your sounding retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond
to this one.
> You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the
killfile.
So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
of your equivocating arse once more.
> > You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
> > revisions
> > of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
> >
>
> Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused Susan
> of making allegations against you, and she did not make those allegations.
Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
Priests
Pat?
Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat?
I made or inferred no direct allegation did I Pat?
What I said was just a little bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?
No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
you saw
Susan
make.
> When you acknowledge that she did not make the
>allegation,
I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.
> you weasel back and renew your
> allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of accusing
>you of
??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot?
Can't complete a coherent sentence?
I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
experimental ethical conduct-
> "Because it is the only moral option.
> Because it is the only ethical option.
> Because it is the only fair option.
> Because it is the only just option.
> Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
> Because it is the only peace option.
> Because it is the only healing option.
> Because it is the only truthful option
> Because it is the only principled option.
>
> Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
> Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
>
> Because it is the only Baha'i option.
>
> Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
> slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
> to my faith.
> Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals relationship
> to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred ground.
>
> Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
> you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
>member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
> Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302132249.
48dd619a%40posting.google.com
Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
resolution....here comes the spin doctor.
> Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
'anti-faith.'
SEE-
> "I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
meaning was
clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
subsequently
refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further innuendo.
Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
Boys
Pat?
Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?
> and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it in
>her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
you backflipping bastard.
> Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
> inference,
Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record
> In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you were
> accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
> assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.
Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
details"
Snip
> "Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
> to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
> anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
> explain/substantiate/justify."
> Rod, 4 September 2003
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=8ccded73.0309040335.42669bd%40posting.google.com
>
> You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation, and it
> had already been found wanting.
What I see is you quoting what I have said all along.
What are you "wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words
"Enemy of the Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.
> This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
> that she says about you.
I say the police have your toilet block under survelience.
I could say that there is no clear allegation of association with a
paedophile
faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bullshit.
Wouldn't it Pat?
>You've been repeating lies, and when you are
> confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case, one
> which was already exposed as simply your own inference.
And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your
eyes) in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-
>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>
> So what's changed Pat?
>
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is what has changed" PK
Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
supposed "lie".
> > If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
> > convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post record...
> > why bother?
> >
>
> Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
> examples!
The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
have said all along.
(Why don't you put up your links to posts purporting to show Baha'is
defending each other from abusive innuendo and allegations that
actually
demonstrated the opposite....they served as good examples of exactly
what you are doing now).
> When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
> anti-faith, you rationalise,
Lie. I never made such acknowledgment. I recognised (as did you)
that she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the
anti faith faction.
All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of language.
> rather than apologise.
I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
that you are earlier.
>You pursue your jihad,
Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
previously
mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
wanker.
>saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
> faith (though I did not show that link here),
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?
> and when you are confronted
> and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
> and rationalise your libels,
By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
of what transpired?
> > > A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
> >
> > Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
> > to what others say with links to their posts.
> >
>
> Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my views.
By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
doing
otherwise.
>Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
> on words you put in her mouth.
Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
and
innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
obnoxious,
one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction"
And Susan has been such a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly
clarify
any misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all
read...clear
and
unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
Pat?...ever
ready
to engage in vitriol free resolution from the outset.....one only has
to
review the
lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
'Why
you
should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.
Arsehole. .
> She never called you "anti-faith";
She never used those words.
> you made that up;
I never said she used those words.
>and she never called you "enemy of the faith",
She never used those words.
> you've made that up, too.
I never said she used those words either.
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!
> Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
>up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?
I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.
> >
> > This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
> > invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your assertions...each
> > time you fire a snide shot and flee.
>
> Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.
And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
I have said all along.
> Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
> allegations were solely your inferences.
That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
recognised
at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.
> Nothing changes, though.
> So what's changed Pat?
>
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
the
issue.
> >
> > It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute an
> > argument of any merit.
> >
>
> The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody called
> you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
> anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended to do
>... so they should substantiate your allegation.
Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-
"This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK
You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
only
expose you further as a lying pissant.
> You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
Pissant is staple diet of jackass.
> >
> > > When you label yourself
> > > an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote the
> > >other party.
> >
> > Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed the
> > parallel
> > to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
> > asking-
> > "Is this what we do to others".
>
> No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,
A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
what
it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy.
What "Susan had done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to
obscure it.
>but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another
matter.
What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
serious
false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
IT *CHANGES* NOTHING!
And that's the backflipping point.
> You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the Faith,
not
>Susan.
So it was her spelling that originally upset you?
Go ahead....make my day...put forward an alternate explanation for
your
discomfort
with the mysterious thing "Susan done".
> It stems from your own mind, though you have
> the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.
I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
that
"Susan apologise". And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
alleged imaginings.
You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU have said let alone
what I have said.
> > When subsequently asked to explain
> > your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation you
> > advised that
> > it was my response to what she said that changed things.
> >
>
> I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
> and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
> year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put words in
> my mouth.
God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
clear
objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
assessment
of my "jackass" response to her allegation.
Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
assumptions/innuendo/allegations
of
anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
apologists.
Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in "exactly the
kind
of crap".
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago on
> B-Net, and
> then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
> was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got shoved in
his face
> at B-Net, a dialectic."
> - me, 21 January 2003
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=3E2E0CB6.57E08529%40ameritel.net
>
> "You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
> - Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
> (above)
>
> >
> > Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
>
> You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be something
> lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
> of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
> someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?
> > you called her
> > out for
>
> I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
The "bad manners" of falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith
faction,
Arsewipe.
> > it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding her
> > erases
> > the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
> > impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
> >
>
> I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I
was "less of a jackass" two years prior.
Now you say everything changes because I pursued Susan too long
for what she did wrong.
> Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.
Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
jackass"?
Your tribal bias bullshit is repugnant.
You will stand by Susans shit.
You will stand by Joplins shit.
You will tell me neither stink...and that I should change my sox.
> You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
> when you are confronted.
When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
your previously stated position I will consider it.
> > Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the faith?
> >
> I told you that in September. Last year
You backflipped in September last year and I said so then
> I told you that you were reading her mind.
I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
her post, and yours.
> Even you said in September that she didn't
> lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of being
> anti-faith,
That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
the
faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
grounds?
> an accusation you'd already tried out
> against her in February,
I know of no (two) separate/independent allegations.
> where you announced that your accusation was
> based on _her_intention_.
No. I said her "intention" was clear and not dependent on the
use of explicit 'terms' such as EofF.
> This means you refused to
> substantiate where she had said what you said she said.
A false conclusion drawn from a false premise and a false account.
> > Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
> >
> Grow up!
You really think you can piss any higher?
> >
> > You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
> > You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i apologists clearly don't give
> > a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly makes
> > in regard another's relation to their faith.
>
> There is a lot that goes on here,
And you have your finger on the pulse of all theological/historical
trivia and a blind eye to all serious community issues.
> but, if you follow me around,
I follow you nowhere blind man.
>and insist,
Insist what?
>and, after I've looked into it,
Looked into what?
> and told you what I saw,
In relation to what? Joplins allegation or Susans?
In either case I never "followed" you nor "insisted"
on anything.
> and you still want to lie about my POV,
How is quoting you a lie?
>eh, sometimes you get challenged.
Sometimes you just make incomprehensible noise Koli....as above.
> > Any lie, any slander, any
> > viscous crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is perceived
> > to
> > be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person enemy.
> >
>
> Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
> person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey dokey?
Pat...That's about as sophisticated as the primary school- "Yea! I
know what 'you' are!...but what am I" .
I have already proved the Baha'i apologist tribal alliance
preparedness
to let any attack on a non person Baha'i go unchallenged....and I did
so
with the support of the thread links you provided.
> >
> > It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
> > allegations
> > that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
> > provide tacit
> > support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
> > Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
> >
>
> Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
> fantasies, where things get 'tacit.
Like Susan you have mastered the art of employing language to convey
no information.
I put before you the reality of your preparedness to cosset the likes
of
Joplin and you have nothing of substance to contribute.
> In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being a
> cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
> out your hypocritical lies,
"Now you're associating him with a cross dresser, an alcoholic
cannibal, and
a
hypocrite, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
> please quote from this message.
When I'm finished rubbing your nose in your prior posts Kiddyfiddler.
> I find your inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
> decontextualized.
Perhaps you need to adjust your spin cycle on your post modernist
white washing machine.
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
>
> So what's changed Pat?
>
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
If you don't like it don't write it.
>
> --Sekhmet
Dermod Ryder
> Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
> participant stood
> up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
Ah ha! Cough! A Major Ingram there! Me remembers not being behind the door
in kicking Joplin's sanctimonious arse!
Oh dear! Another non-BIGS!
Rod
> "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message
> news:<20040121002513...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
Snip
> Spirituality to her and sideshow Kholi is about lying, deceit,
> bamboozlement, treachery, false appearances, ad nauseum. Go figure,
> nominalism....
You left out evasion, hypocrisy, slander, grumpyness and bad breath.
But I take your point.
Rod
Sekhmet <sekhm...@aol.com.nz> wrote in message
news:20040122022452...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Rod wrote:
> >Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
> >Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
> >participant stood
> >up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
> >
> >Go figure.
> >Proove otherwise.
>
> Your recollection is a bit faulty,
Yea? Your suggesting that you (or someone other than Paul) stepped up
and asked Joplin to stand and deliver on his "attacking the whole faith"
bullshit allegation?
Joplin ran that crap for weeks- refusing to elaborate, explain or justify-
unchallenged by any BIGS participant.....standard Baha'i procedure.
> but frankly I don't feel it's worth the bother of doing any research to
correct it,
LOL! No point digging for what aint there. The nearest any Baha'i came to
even recognising Joplins allegation had been made was backflip Kohli's limp
wristed asside to the effect that he did not believe an attack on the faith
had been
made. Not exactly what one would describe as a call for substantiation or
a defence of Baha'i principle....but exactly what one would expect from a
community that doesn't give a rats arse for truth or justice.
>having seen your responses to similar research performed by Pat.
LOL even louder! What "research" would that be? His list of thread
links that purported to show online Baha'is challenging abusive behaviour
and false allegations? The links that turned out to show EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE and he hadn't bothered to READ them? Is this the
"research performed by Pat"? The links in which he claimed Baha'i
fundamentalist arsehole Effy/Pith was "howled off" Bnet for his shitfull
behaviour....but when you actually read the links there is naught but
backslapping approval for his abusive conduct?
Just like here....you will link arms and hold hands and maintain unity...
.................exactly the same kind of unity they had in the SS.
One that turns a blind eye to principle.
One that turns others into non persons/enemies.
Berni
Mark,
That may be so. However, I am under the impression that Susan has
been given the Protection portfolio for the internet. To play a
Straight Bat if you like to the aggressive internet spin and fast
bawling attacks. I not sure whether it was the UHJ or US NSA or some
other that appointed her.
Often, she says that she receives various official documentation
relating to internet personalities and issues. For instance in this
recent Gang of Four message from the Secretariat, Susan said she would
have expected to receive this info.
Maybe Susan can inform us herself what role she has been asked to play
by the AO?
berni
Rod
> "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
> > Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
> > participant stood
> > up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
>
> Ah ha! Cough! A Major Ingram there! Me remembers not being behind the door
> in kicking Joplin's sanctimonious arse!
Shit Dermod....you don't count...you shoot at anything BIGS that moves! ;-)
> Oh dear! Another non-BIGS!
Yea....bloody remarkable isn't it...time and time again some fundo
fruitloop crawls up out of the woodwork and exposes the rotten core
of the culture and the BIGS nod, wink and clap them on the shoulder.
The only ones who consistently challenge the nutters, call for principled
behaviour and demand they cease evasion and substantiate are non Baha'is
(or Baha'is deemed heretic by BIGS).
All I ever expected, in the community or online, was for some Baha'i/
any Baha'i to simply turn to the accuser and invite- "Interesting allegation,
care to substantiate or retract"? It never happens Dermod...and it still
stuns me...even online with the prospect of non Baha'i lurkers watching...
the BIGS cannot muster the most basic courtesy, common sense, ethics or
fair play. It is a sad madness I cannot fathom.....and I'm sick of trying.
(My eldest daughter has been lurking and watching proceedings, she thinks
your funny, she also thinks we are both- "Hairy old computer nerds who ought
to go out and get some real freinds instead of wasting our time bitchslapping
idiots".....my daughter has a mouth, a point and no interest in things Baha'i.
I count my blessings, and stop, content, at three ;-)
Rod.
Dermod Ryder
I see! You're not buying the drink then! Typical!
Dermod Ryder
"Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<buo973$kbeg5$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
> > > Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
> > > participant stood
> > > up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
> >
> > Ah ha! Cough! A Major Ingram there! Me remembers not being behind the
door
> > in kicking Joplin's sanctimonious arse!
>
> Shit Dermod....you don't count...you shoot at anything BIGS that moves!
;-)
Yeah! But I keep missing She Who Thinks She Ought To Be Obeyed.
> > Oh dear! Another non-BIGS!
>
> Yea....bloody remarkable isn't it...time and time again some fundo
> fruitloop crawls up out of the woodwork and exposes the rotten core
> of the culture and the BIGS nod, wink and clap them on the shoulder.
> The only ones who consistently challenge the nutters, call for principled
> behaviour and demand they cease evasion and substantiate are non Baha'is
> (or Baha'is deemed heretic by BIGS).
Doesn't surprise me at all! NON-BIGS RULE! OK! I know that dates me but it
still sounds good.
> (My eldest daughter has been lurking and watching proceedings, she thinks
> your funny,
A most perspicacious and wise young lady! I'm starting to like her already!
> she also thinks we are both- "Hairy old computer nerds who ought
> to go out and get some real freinds instead of wasting our time
bitchslapping
> idiots".....
She obviously hasn't tried it yet! Sling the keyboard to her and have her
sample the delights of abusing hypocrisy!
> my daughter has a mouth, a point and no interest in things Baha'i
Even wiser than I first thought. You're a lucky man! Does she make the
coffee for you?
Rod
> sekhm...@aol.com.nz wrote on 22/1/04 7:24 am:
>
> > Rod wrote:
> >> Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
> >> Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one
> TRB
> >> participant stood
> >> up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
> >>
> >> Go figure.
> >> Proove otherwise.
> >
> > Your recollection is a bit faulty, but frankly I don't feel it's worth the
> > bother of doing any research to correct it, having seen your responses to
> > similar research performed by Pat.
>
> I think Rod's response to Pat Kohli in the post below was just
> magnifico, superb and wonderful.
In retrospect...I think it was a lengthy waste of time. Like all
attempts to
meet and refute the arguemet point by tedious point it is only
worthwhile
if the recipient has the guts, ethics and intelligence to respond.
Cornered
by his own words Ekohli fled into cowards killfile...there he and
Susan will
stay...pretending that if they shut their eyes no one can see them.
> I am sure Rod has made many poor liberal Bahais who Pat Kohli ruthlessly
> hammered over the years very happy with this post.
Franly/honestly I have not seen Kohli "ruthlessly hammer" anyone over
the
years. Most of what he presents in the way of attack is oblique and
evasive...
reliant on vague referance, double meaning and innuendo. This is a
central
aspect of Baha'i psuedo spirituality- to not say directly and
explicitly
what you mean- to pretend that the thinly veiled allusion reflects
manners
or virtues. Evasion is the key to Kohli and Manics game... the 'non
answer'-
the post that contains words but conveys no
meaning/intent/answer...the 'non
post'- ignore the reply, wait three days/three weeks, pretend no reply
has
been made and re post original shite, last evasive resort killfile.
The tactics they employ in debate are no different to the tactics
employed
by terrorists...hide, shoot, run, hide, throw bomb, run, hide, play
dead,
pretend God sent you, hijack someones character/core values, attempt
to smash them, run and hide some more.
> Its so good I might get it blown up framed and
> hang it over a whole wall in my bedroom so I can wake up to read it
> every morning
Go for it....if you ever find the pages are stuck together it's time
to put out the cigarette and get your eyesight tested.
Dermod Ryder
"Berni" <berni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:277fc37a.04012...@posting.google.com...
> That may be so. However, I am under the impression that Susan has
> been given the Protection portfolio for the internet. To play a
> Straight Bat if you like to the aggressive internet spin and fast
> bawling attacks. I not sure whether it was the UHJ or US NSA or some
> other that appointed her.
Or herself? I'd lay me money on that one though it is strongly rumoured
that there is a puppet master pulling the strings - Abdul the Bull Bull
Cookies, perhaps.
> Often, she says that she receives various official documentation
> relating to internet personalities and issues. For instance in this
> recent Gang of Four message from the Secretariat, Susan said she would
> have expected to receive this info.
She was most disappointed that Karen and I were in the information loop
ahead of her. Does this mean that we have better connections within the AO?
I would tend to think so.
> Maybe Susan can inform us herself what role she has been asked to play
> by the AO?
Divinely ordained oval seat with a hole in the middle?
Rod
> I think Rod's response to Pat Kohli in the post below was just
> magnifico, superb and wonderful.
HA!.......I've seen better!-
.............................................
You all knew and no one said!
Here was I thinking I was the only one! The one and only!
Then I stumble across the boasting of some Latin dude 'El Baquiano'
over at Bnet....You know the type, bright silk shirt, fast car...only
interested in money and girls.
This flash spiv was boasting about how he got himself molested
here on TRB...so I did some research and I found the love letters!
Baquiano to Susan M-
"Either prove these allegations or apologize. This is the third time
that you have made such remarks. I have pointed them out two previous
times. And you have not responded to either of them."
" I am shocked to read your words. Where have I "challenged the way they
(House of Justice) is investing"? Where have I said that "the House
was exercising less than proper stewardship"?"
"But I strongly object to the way that you are twisting and perversing
my intentions and words."
"I will answer your question of 'why' but once again, you skirt around
the fact that you have attributed disgusting lies and ugly motivations
to me without any proof whatsoever."
"Since I prize the Baha'i Faith, words that insult it are vile. And
since I never uttered nothing resembling them, I say that you are
falsely attribute them to me. You continuously imply that my
motivations are suspect and nefarious and that I am attacking the
Faith and its institutions. Yet in the face of irreproachable proof to
the contrary, you continue to add to your mound of lies."
"You, Madam, are devoid of propriety, dignity and morality."
...................................................
OH! WHY!?......WHY!? WHY!? WHY!?
How could she toy with my affections so????
I thought I was the only one she misread and misrepresented!!!
I thought I was the only one she falsely accused!!!
I thought I was her one and only little bogus enemy of the faith!!!!
AND YOU! YA BASTARDS!
Sitting there smirking and laughing behind my back!
YOU KNEW ALL ALONG!
Well I hope you are all satisfied and have had your fun at my expense!
Go ahead and laugh!
I have my memories to temper the pain of loss.
Rod
Rod
> > She doesn't represent me and or any Baha'is that I know.
>
> Mark,
>
> That may be so. However, I am under the impression that Susan has
> been given the Protection portfolio for the internet. To play a
> Straight Bat if you like to the aggressive internet spin and fast
> bawling attacks. I not sure whether it was the UHJ or US NSA or some
> other that appointed her.
Susan understands the portfolio appointment to come directly from God.
> Often, she says that she receives various official documentation
> relating to internet personalities and issues. For instance in this
> recent Gang of Four message from the Secretariat, Susan said she would
> have expected to receive this info.
Hmmmmm.....Someone in the Secretariat is going to be a very sorry little
Vegemite.
> Maybe Susan can inform us herself what role she has been asked to play
> by the AO?
Divinely Ordained Rabid Toothless Bull-Terrier Bitch in Lederhosen.
(There's one in that new movie about the vampires...it screams-
"You have violated the Covenant"...very funy, go see ;-)
Rod.
Dermod Ryder
> over at Bnet....You know the type, bright silk shirt, fast car...only
> interested in money and girls.
> This flash spiv was boasting about how he got himself molested
> here on TRB...so I did some research and I found the love letters!
As you well know, since the smiling face of Bahai standards of conversation,
otherwise known as censorship, went into place on B'net, out went the Reaper
post haste.
I understand some bastard pretender to the title - Grimreaper 2 or something
similar - did turn up and make an ass of himself. Apparently, or so I'm
told, because I wouldn't go looking for the foul knave, he tried, without
success to imitate the inimitable Reaper. Can anybody shed light on this
report? The name of the culprit perhaps?
<SNIP>
> "You, Madam, are devoid of propriety, dignity and morality."
> ...................................................
>
> OH! WHY!?......WHY!? WHY!? WHY!?
>
> How could she toy with my affections so????
>
> I thought I was the only one she misread and misrepresented!!!
Sorry no! I was there first with the great Schism promotion on Zuhur ...
complete with stamps and loyalty cards!
> I thought I was the only one she falsely accused!!!
Sorry but there was the great Egging On Race on Zuhur ... a free CB with
every false accusation.
> I thought I was her one and only little bogus enemy of the faith!!!!
Gawd I hate to tell you this but... there's the Gang of the Fiendish Four.
> AND YOU! YA BASTARDS!
> Sitting there smirking and laughing behind my back!
> YOU KNEW ALL ALONG!
>
> Well I hope you are all satisfied and have had your fun at my expense!
> Go ahead and laugh!
>
> I have my memories to temper the pain of loss.
Not even that as soon as I can remember an ad lib!
reli...@yahoo.com
kas...@tpg.com.au wrote on 22/1/04 4:29 pm:
>
>> I am sure Rod has made many poor liberal Bahais who Pat Kohli
ruthlessly
>> hammered over the years very happy with this post.
>
> Franly/honestly I have not seen Kohli "ruthlessly hammer" anyone over
> the
> years. Most of what he presents in the way of attack is oblique and
> evasive...
> reliant on vague referance, double meaning and innuendo. This is a
> central
> aspect of Baha'i psuedo spirituality- to not say directly and
> explicitly
> what you mean- to pretend that the thinly veiled allusion reflects
> manners
> or virtues. Evasion is the key to Kohli and Manics game... the 'non
> answer'-
> the post that contains words but conveys no
> meaning/intent/answer...the 'non
> post'- ignore the reply, wait three days/three weeks, pretend no reply
> has
> been made and re post original shite, last evasive resort killfile.
I couldn't agree more with your nuch better explantion.
My meaning of "ruthlessly hammer" has already been explained again
*much better* by others with longer experience at dealing with the
likes of Dr Maneck and Pat Kohli. Its called :
The Bahai Technique: - Ad Hominem, Libel, Slander, Demonize,
Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite, Defame, Vilify,
Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully, Intimidate,
Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Coerce, Silence, Harass... etc., etc....
CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last decade or two a number of observers have noted
common methods many fundamentalists among my fellow bahais
use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold opinions
other than their own:
------------------------------------------------------------------
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. "Scapegoat (Lev. xvi) 1. Invented
by Tindale 1530.... One of the two goats that was chosen by Lot to be
sent
away into the wilderness, the sins of the people having been
symbolically
laid upon it, while the other was appointed to be sacrificed. 2. One
who is
blamed or punished for the sins of others. 1867 Freeman, He has been
made the scapegoat for many of the sins both of other individuals and
of
the whole nation."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scapegoat.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
Professor Juan Cole, February 23, 1999:
"There is nothing to be puzzled by. Right wing Baha'is only like to
hear the
sound of their own voices (which are the only voices they will admit
to
being "Baha'i" at all). Obviously, the world is so constructed that
they
cannot in fact only hear their own voices. They are forced to hear
other
voices that differ from theirs. This most disturbs them when the
voices
come from enrolled Baha'isor when the voices speak of the Baha'i
faith.
The way they sometimes deal with the enrolled Baha'is is to summon
them
to a heresy inquiry and threaten them with being shunned if they do
not
fallsilent. With non-Baha'is or with ex-Baha'is, they deal with their
speech
about the faith by backbiting, slandering and libelling the speaker.
You
will note that since I've been on this list I have been accused of
long-term heresy, of "claiming authority," of out and out lying
(though that was retracted, twice), of misrepresentation, of 'playing
fast and loose with the facts,' and even of being 'delusional.' I have
been accused of all these falsehoods by *Baha'is*, by prominent
Baha'is.
I have been backbitten by them. This shows that all the talk about the
danger a sharp tongue can do, all the talk about the need for harmony,
for returning poison with honey, for a sin-covering eye, is just
*talk*
among right wing Baha'is. No one fights dirtier than they when they
discover
a voice they cannot silence and cannot refute. Paul Johnson
has seen all these things, as well, for the past five years.
He can explain it to you."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole71.htm
Professor Juan Cole, 12/5/2002:
"The purpose of having this system where it is so easy to turn
insiders into
outsiders is to maintain very strict control over the community by its
leaders. The idea is that everyone still on the inside will fear being
made a non-person or being ostracized or being shunned, and so will
keep
quiet and let the leadership do as it pleases with them. Silent
suffering
of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders is the actual definition
of a
Baha'i in good standing. Of course, this requirement is cult-like...."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole80.htm
Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of the
individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I have
experienced
it, for nearly sixteen years now [since 1976]. The usual stratagem in
dealing with anyone who would express his conscience in good faith is
to
pretend the Cause is above any kind of criticism whatsoever while
intimating
that anyone who would speak honestly must have something wrong with
him,
i.e., his spiritual life isn't what it should be, he doesn't
understand the
nature of unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for
himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and
so on. Another common strategy used to acquire control over the
individual
is to humor the person by letting him pour himself out, etc., and then
self-righteously giving him the Truth."
http://www.fglaysher.com/LettersAmD1989-1994.htm
Frederick Glaysher, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many
Bahais
during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated
newsgroup
is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who
are in
favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never
responding
analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence,
attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging
up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of
the
soc.religion.bahai moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a
technique
used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the
dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how
'loving'
and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The
trouble
isthat this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort
not to
fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and
miserable
enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can
REALLY
let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread
Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the
jugular.
Very sad."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/House2.htm
Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3DAE2CE7...@usq.edu.au... October 2002,
WROTE REGARDING SUSAN MANECK's Technique:
If this were the the first, or a rare, occasion on which this specimen
had got up to this shenanigan, we might let it pass. But it is, in my
experience, her typical pattern of "debate": take something from
another
poster, think out some uncharitable 'consequence' that she thinks
follows from it, and then assert as factual that the original posters
were in favour of her uncharitable interpretation. It is, imho, a
fundamentally malicious and dishonest way to conduct debate.
Steven Scholl, March 12, 2002:
"The problem in her [Susan Maneck] cult view of the world is the
"dissident act" of shining a light on internal Baha'i affairs so that
outsiders (and insiders) can learn about what really takes place in
the Baha'i world. The great sin is ignoring the Baha'i taboo against
speaking out against internal injustices because to do so is to
tarnish
the reputation of the Baha'i institutions. Good Baha'is are expected
to take their abuse in silence. If they speak out against abuse,
they are regarded as internal opposition and come under investigation
from the Baha'i Inquisition. They are vilified and threatened, even
told that their status in the afterlife is threatened if they don't
change their ways. And, yes, this was a key element [in] the little
drama that played out between the Baha'i leadership and myself."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl4.htm
Rod Wicks, January 22, 2004:
I disagree...and my disagreement is based on years of online
discussions
in which Susans [Maneck] propensity to accuse (openly or through
innuendo)is
reflected by other fundamentalist Baha'is. So too the evasiveness, the
glib,
trite
smarmy non answer, the drive by 'blipvert' of one line innuendo, the
refusal
to stand and defend/justify/explain any attack or allegation, the
retreat
into cowards killfile when her dishonesty is exposed.....all these are
common features of what has been described as the Baha'i Technique. I
did not believe such a phenomena could exist when I first came
online...
today the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable. Susan M perfectly
reflects
all that is worst about contemporary Baha'i culture...'they' know it
and
love
her for it.
No....Manic and fundamentalist co workers do not simply "represent"
the
Baha'i community...they *ARE* the community...their identification is
total/complete. Any criticism of any aspect of Baha'i is perceived by
Manic and Co as a direct personal attack and they respond by attacking
the individual rather than the argument. They will invent and
manufacture 'enemies of the faith', 'violators of the Covenant' and
even stoop to open allegations of criminal activity.
The AO cannot possibly be deaf, dumb and blind to this activity any
more than the online Baha'i gallery and lurkers are blind to it.
It is granted approval, formal or informal, open or tacit...it matters
not.
The truth is apparent in examination of the facts...the facts are
available in review of the archives...the archives reveal incident
after incident/event after event in which Susan (or co fundamentalist)
levels a baseless and unprovoked serious allegation, refuses
substantiation,
hides behind glib and evasive [expletive] and/or killfile and receives
open or tacit support for doing so.
Susan represents a prevailing culture of abuse, slander, denial and
evasion.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ccded73.0401212239.6e99f512%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of
manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with
thoughtful
people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own
fault. I
consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only
way to
deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let
yourself
be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very
hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I
don't know whether it's possible when a groupacts this way. Very
scary."
Dermod Ryder, February 28, 2002:
"This is what is known as the "love bomb" technique. Disregard and
entirely
ignore the substance of any complaint or criticism and throw out this
carpet
of "bahai love" which will overwhelm the reason and appeal to the
emotion.
I've been vaccinated! What I also glean from recourse to this
technique
isthat there is no answer to the points I raised. In effect you guys
who
support the AO do so through thick and thin to the point where you
cannot
and will not admit that it has any faults of any substantive value.
Because
guys like me cannot agree with you - the fault is obviously ours."
K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998:
"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty] were
followed
by Baha'i administration and individuals in their condemnations of
their
fellow believers, I would have very little to complain about regarding
Baha'i affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the
preferred way
of dealing with anything remotely resembling dissidence. Seems like
that's
exactly what you're doing to Juan Cole in your message. Saying I don't
want
to know what you've "got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating
you have
some awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not
character
assassination by innuendo, what is?"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Johnson18.htm
Dermod Ryder, September 19, 2001:
"And then Eureka! I realised why Fred gets the treatment he does . . .
for Fred has painstakingly not only assembled the evidence of the
canker
within but he constantly publicises it to the extent that he really
gets up
noses and AO noses at that! . . . I basically agree with him that the
AO
terrorises people - terror is more than bombs or kamikaze aircraft. A
whispered aside in the right circumstances can instil terror (like a
threat
to be made a CB) - most ethnic cleansing is carried out by a piece of
"good" advice to the effect that one would be better off NOT living in
this
neighbourhood, from a gentleman who is known or assumed to have the
"right connections" to ensure the advice is heeded. Twenty years ago
the
AO tried that particular threatening tactic on with me and were told
where
they could stick it! Others can also testify to that including Dennis
Rogers
whose experiences were posted on TRB recently. And you guys hate
Fred for this, for his continued exposing of the sewer that the AO has
become. Of course you all hate Juan, Alison, Michael, Nima etc as well
and for the same reason and give them the same treatment but somewhat
reduced for they don't post as much as Fred who is just a real pain in
the
butt for doing what he does so well! Fred is an avid counter terrorist
and
he's good at it as the whimpering from the BIGS proves!"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Ryder2001.htm
David Langness, 31 Mar 1997:
"I would advise you to be careful about any meetings, calls or
correspondence with Hoda Mahmoudi, who used to be an ABM
here in Southern California. She is quite conservative, and sees
herself -- as do many of the appointed branch, sadly -- as a staunch
defender of the Faith and the faithful, able and more than willing to
marginalize people like you and I to discredit our ideas. This
cultlike
practice of shunning and casting out any dissidents has unfortunately
become the chief tactic of those fundamentalist Baha'is bent on
maintaining the current leadership. My worry is that the more
progressive Baha'is like Juan Cole and Steve Scholl and yourself
will all leave the Faith and thereby increase the power of the
conservatives."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Langness.htm
Compare Maneck - DRIVING people out of the Bahai Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck9.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bahai Technique is available on the web at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For two excellent introductions to the Bahai Wars:
Professor Juan R. I. Cole, University of Michigan,
"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community,"
Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
Karen Bacquet, "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the
Baha'i Community." Published in American Family Foundation's
Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 18, pp.109-140:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
COMPARE
Geoffrey Chaucer, AD 1340-1400.
Prologue to the Pardoner's Tale:
For in truth, many a sermon
Comes often out of evil intention;
Some for the pleasing and flattery of people,
To have advancement by hypocrisy,
And some for worldly fame, and some for hate.
For, when I dare not oppose a man otherwise,
Then I sting him with my sharp tongue
In preaching, so that he cannot escape
Being falsely slandered, if he
Has wronged my brothers or myself.
For, although I do not tell his exact name,
Men can readily guess whom I mean
By hints and by other devices.
Thus I pay back people who do us bad turns;
Thus I spit out my venom under color
Of holiness, while seeming holy and sincere....
(Translator, Vincent F. Hopper. 1948)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
For an individual's use of The Bahai Technique, see Susan Maneck -
DRIVING
people out of the Bahai Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck9.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From another perspective, Karen Bacquet's Net Games: Fallacies,
Gambits, and
Maneuvers in Baha'i Cyberspace
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Netgames.html
Susan Maneck
>been given the Protection portfolio for the internet.
There is no "Protection portfolio" for the Internet. Or if there is, they
haven't told me about it. If such a portfolio did exist it would have to be in
the hands of a Counsellor. Anyone else who is a member of the Protection Arm is
bound by geographical constraints.
Me, I've never so much as served as an assistant to the Auxiliary Board.
>Often, she says that she receives various official documentation
>relating to internet personalities and issues.
Yeah, I can usually get what I ask for. So can you.
>For instance in this
>recent Gang of Four message from the Secretariat, Susan said she would
>have expected to receive this info.
Not from the Institutions; not unless they wanted me to stop talking to them.
But Baha'is sending me stuff that is floating around all the time, if only to
ask me about it. If I wasn't sent this, then chances are it isn't floating in
the usual Baha'i circles.
>
>Maybe Susan can inform us herself what role she has been asked to play
>by the AO?
Yeah, I can.
Absolutely none, though as the letter regarding Nima indicated I am sometimes
thanked for efforts to defend the Faith.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>Or herself? I'd lay me money on that one
Dermod,
You'd win the bet!
> Does this mean that we have better connections within the AO?
>I would tend to think so.
Niether one of you got this information from the AO and it is unlikely I would
have gotten it directly from them either unless, as I said, they didn't want me
talking to you anymore.
Cal E. Rollins
Hear, hear! Or however you Ukers in the provinces say it.
I find it astounding that whoever makes determinations of enemies of the
Faith would leave out all the awful folk who daily make enemies with
their weird ultra-right and conservative nonsense and just plain rude
behaviour splashing pig shite and slops all over cyberspace in the name
of Baha'i religiosity. With those porcine guys and gals on our side,
enemies must find themselves well-served. Great fun. And thanks.
--Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Why do you think so many of these good folk you speak of are being taken
to court and their places of employment being bombarded in protest? It
used to be that Baha'is were cowed by the Guardian's concern that we
take our fellows to public task for their big mouths and loose-lips.
Now there is an almost universal awareness that the only way to stop
their nastiness is to take their ass to court, preferably asking for
monetary compensation. Why do you think the American NSA has its own
Counsel and so many Baha'i lawyers are working pro bono? People are
tired of being maligned and run over by the Mean Not-So-Lean-Any Longer
Baha'i Machine. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I knew I should have learned Persian when the Guardian said I should.
I'm missing the translation of all those barbs in Persian. I'm jealous
that people like Susan, fluent in the Languages of Revelation, are
getting what I'm missing and passing it on to the litter. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I don't know anything about nominalism, but I do know about university
professors and ex-military (Government folk). Rank bureaucrats. They
make excellent Baha'is. I read somewhere that the Guardian said
Catholics make good Baha'is, too. Maybe for the same reasons? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Sorry. Susie told me way-back-when that she was educating the Universal
House of Justice on rijal and hickie mat (or some such). Obviously,
she's already way up there in the hierarchy of the Learned. She clearly
can't be the next Guardian due to already admitted W&T constraints, but
she could well be a House of Justice member if her course of education
is successful and they pass the test (a friend said "She be too old and
well-known for one of them sex-overhauls /gender transformation/").
So be careful not to antagonize a potential House of Justice Member and
do give her the due and deference she has come to expect. I walk around
her as on eggshells never knowing where she'll wind up. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Too true. I've learned over the years that the best way to counter the
kind of behaviour exemplified by Susan and her ilk is to learn their
devices and give them back in amplified kind. It doesn't stop them, of
course, but they do temporarily moderate. But you better not turn your
back on them or give them any rope, cause before you know it they're
trying to hang you rather than themselves. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Lederhosen? They still wear those things? My inlaws gave me a pair
decades ago and I grew out of them and they got away. Do you think
Susie could get me a pair of extra large? --Cal
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040122162839...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >
> >Or herself? I'd lay me money on that one
>
> Dermod,
>
> You'd win the bet!
>
> > Does this mean that we have better connections within the AO?
> >I would tend to think so.
>
> Niether one of you got this information from the AO and it is unlikely I
would
> have gotten it directly from them either unless, as I said, they didn't
want me
> talking to you anymore.
So where did it come from? You're full of where you think it didn't come
from but not so hot on where it did come from. And what do the Counsellors
think about it? Annoyed that it's out in the open? Worried about the
consequences? I'll put money on that.
Dermod Ryder
> >For instance in this
> >recent Gang of Four message from the Secretariat, Susan said she would
> >have expected to receive this info.
>
> Not from the Institutions; not unless they wanted me to stop talking to
them.
> But Baha'is sending me stuff that is floating around all the time, if only
to
> ask me about it. If I wasn't sent this, then chances are it isn't floating
in
> the usual Baha'i circles.
Who said it was floating in the usual circles. It is a targeted message
designed for those deemed potentially disloyal and/or incapable of dealing
with the threat posed on TRB by contct with the enemy. Only those well
traned and versed in de Covenant are permitted here. You admitted the
clueless stumble by here and make eedjits of themselves. they don't get
this letter - sooner or later the message dawns and off they go sometimes
following advice and sometimes not.
This message is a special backbiting. I don't object to the activities
described but I do say that no man and certainly no Grumpy can determine my
motives.
So let's hear the defence and justification for it.
And BTW the Lady Reaper doesn't see anything in it that implies the
instructions and/or advice are confined to Internet activities. I'll take
it to some people outside the BF and ask their opinion.
Susan Maneck
You guys sure made it sound like it was spread all over the internet by
Baha'is.
>And BTW the Lady Reaper doesn't see anything in it that implies the
>instructions and/or advice are confined to Internet activities.
So are you sleeping on the couch now?
(I know coaches aren't your style.)
But when I didn't mean so much to imply that it applied only to the internt, as
I did that it implied not discussing the Faith, not that you couldn't discuss
the latest, uh soccer game.
Susan Maneck
>So where did it come from?
I got it from you, Dermod! Remember you posted it. I'm trying to get my own
copy, but right now I'm taking your word for it.
>And what do the Counsellors
>think about it?
Haven't heard from them.
Dermod Ryder
> >
> >So where did it come from?
>
> I got it from you, Dermod! Remember you posted it. I'm trying to get my
own
> copy, but right now I'm taking your word for it.
You said that we didn't get it from the AO. So I asked where you thought we
got it. Have you thoughts on that question?
> >And what do the Counsellors
> >think about it?
>
> Haven't heard from them.
Must be dreaming up a way to try to deny it all.
Dermod Ryder
> >Who said it was floating in the usual circles
>
> You guys sure made it sound like it was spread all over the internet by
> Baha'is.
We never said it was spread all over the Internet - we suggested it was
being sent to people ative on the Internet.
> >And BTW the Lady Reaper doesn't see anything in it that implies the
> >instructions and/or advice are confined to Internet activities.
>
> So are you sleeping on the couch now?
No! I'm sitting at my desk.
> (I know coaches aren't your style.)
Too big- I prefer to drive my diesel car. It goes like a rat with a rocket
tied to its arse.
> But when I didn't mean so much to imply that it applied only to the
internt, as
> I did that it implied not discussing the Faith, not that you couldn't
discuss
> the latest, uh soccer game.
The letter is clear enough without implying anything into it.
Susan Maneck
>We never said it was spread all over the Internet - we suggested it was
>being sent to people ative on the Internet.
Uh, last I heard I was pretty active here.
Dermod Ryder
> >
> >We never said it was spread all over the Internet - we suggested it was
> >being sent to people ative on the Internet.
>
> Uh, last I heard I was pretty active here.
Ah but you're considered unlikely to be contaminated by the spiritual
corrosion of the Gang of Four where other poor souls are deemed susceptible.
You've been innoculated with the amorality of the AO and that's proof
against caustic soda never mind paltry spiritual corrosion.
Besides which Abdul the BulBul ensures your inoculations are kept smack bang
up to date.
Sekhmet
>
>Yea? Your suggesting that you (or someone other than Paul) stepped up
>and asked Joplin to stand and deliver on his "attacking the whole faith"
>bullshit allegation?
I asked him to can the ad hominems. Had I realized at the time that you were
still an enrolled Baha'i, I would have asked you to do the same, since we
should all be attempting to practice what we preach (which includes civilized
behaviour).
>Joplin ran that crap for weeks- refusing to elaborate, explain or justify-
>unchallenged by any BIGS participant.....standard Baha'i procedure.
You're a Baha'i too, right? If you sincerely want an improvement in the way
your fellow believers relate to you on the internet, maybe you should consider
setting an example of how we _should_ behave, instead of setting an example of
how we shouldn't while demanding that we not reply in kind.
>> but frankly I don't feel it's worth the bother of doing any research to
>correct it,
>
>LOL! No point digging for what aint there. The nearest any Baha'i came to
>even recognising Joplins allegation had been made was backflip Kohli's limp
>wristed asside to the effect that he did not believe an attack on the faith
>had been
>made. Not exactly what one would describe as a call for substantiation or
>a defence of Baha'i principle.... [blahdeblahdeblah...]
Suffice it to say that having followed the threads in question, I pretty much
agree with Pat's take on the situation.
--Sekhmet
Sekhmet
>I understand some bastard pretender to the title - Grimreaper 2 or something
>similar - did turn up and make an ass of himself. Apparently, or so I'm
>told, because I wouldn't go looking for the foul knave, he tried, without
>success to imitate the inimitable Reaper. Can anybody shed light on this
>report? The name of the culprit perhaps?
Not that I'm in a position to actually be able to answer that question, but if
as you say the perpetrator made an ass of himself, I nominate the guy who was
doing that rather limp-wristed imitation of Paul awhile ago. ;-)
--Sekhmet
Susan Maneck
>
>You said that we didn't get it from the AO. So I asked where you thought we
>got it. Have you thoughts on that question?
Only what is implied from your posts. That is was someone the House might have
deemed potentially vulnerable to your influence. It also sounds like something
you guys said created doubts in this persons mind which caused them to write to
the House of Justice and the reply they received upset them.
Freethought110
> Suffice it to say that having followed the threads in question, I pretty much
> agree with Pat's take on the situation.
LOL :)) Cultists pulling rank!
Sekhmet
Why aren't you shunning me?
Rod
> Rod wrote:
> >
> >Yea? Your suggesting that you (or someone other than Paul) stepped up
> >and asked Joplin to stand and deliver on his "attacking the whole faith"
> >bullshit allegation?
>
> I asked him to can the ad hominems.
Jesus wept! Who's talking about ad hom? How many times does the
distinction
have to be made between insult and serious allegation/slander?
The former is water off a ducks back...the latter can/does seriously
impact on an individuals standing in the community- Baha'i/general.
Who cares if a dickhead calls you a dickhead? It is of NO CONSEQUENCE.
But when an arshole calls you an "Enemy of the Faith" or some bitch
publicly accuses you (falsely) of "cyberstalking" such attacks have
real impact on peoples lives.
I repeat.....I saw no BIGS Baha'i make any direct challenge or request
substantiation re Joplins repeated allegation.
Link to evidence if it exists....otherwise add Joplins to the long
long list of online attacks to which Baha'is turn a blind eye.
> Had I realized at the time that you were
> still an enrolled Baha'i, I would have asked you to do the same, since we
> should all be attempting to practice what we preach (which includes civilized
> behaviour).
Frankly I'm fed up with the attention Baha'is will pay to 'splinter'
ad hom
while they ignore the blade of serious attack....there is nothing
"civilised"
about it.
> >Joplin ran that crap for weeks- refusing to elaborate, explain or justify-
> >unchallenged by any BIGS participant.....standard Baha'i procedure.
>
> You're a Baha'i too, right?
A believer? Yea.
Card carrying? Yea.
Identified, associated or aligned with the Baha'i community? No.
> If you sincerely want an improvement in the way
> your fellow believers relate to you on the internet, maybe you should consider
> setting an example of how we _should_ behave, instead of setting an example of
> how we shouldn't while demanding that we not reply in kind.
Maybe you should consider the fact that I allready have set such an
"ecxample"-
I went to great lengths to seek clarification/explanation from Susan
for her
attacks...all I got was evasion,ad hom, innuendo and allegation. I
gave repeated
fair warning before embracing her no rules policy. Likewise with
Joplin, I gave every oportunity for substantiation of this slander and
he provided none.
Untill you can show me your (or any other BIGS) intervention/objection
to
repeated public slander I suggest you look to the beam in your own
eye.
> >> but frankly I don't feel it's worth the bother of doing any research to
> >correct it,
> >
> >LOL! No point digging for what aint there. The nearest any Baha'i came to
> >even recognising Joplins allegation had been made was backflip Kohli's limp
> >wristed asside to the effect that he did not believe an attack on the faith
> >had been
> >made. Not exactly what one would describe as a call for substantiation or
> >a defence of Baha'i principle.... [blahdeblahdeblah...]
>
> Suffice it to say that having followed the threads in question,
"Followed the threads in question" did you? Gave them your considered
attention did you?
Perhaps then you might explain why you have here expressed uncertainty
about
my Baha'i status?
Why would a non Baha'i be passionatly opposed to 'enemy of faith'
allegations?
How could my enrolled status have escaped your attention as you
"followed the threads"?
Does't make sense does it?
Bottom line is- You have been repeatedly invited to put forward a link
to the
objections (re Joplins allegations) you claim transpired...you will
not do so...
you can not do so.
You will say it's not "worth the bother", you will offer me advice
already taken, you will make vague referance to objecting to ad hom,
evasion of the issue will continue with "[blahdeblahdeblah...]"
dismissiveness.....but you
will not face the fact that what you claimed exists- does not....will
you?
>I pretty much agree with Pat's take on the situation.
Pat's take on the Joplin situation?
Pat's take on that was clearly that as a Baha'i he was under no
obligation
to question or challenge or object or call for substantiation when one
Baha'i
publicly accuses another of "attacking the whole Baha'i faith".
And you "pretty much" agree with his "take" and his failure to respond
as Abdul Baha instructed we should respond...to instantly defend
others from
attack...to not let liars get away with lie....???
Why does this not surprise me.
Show me your or any BIGS following Abdul Baha's "take on the
situation".
Rod.
Paul Hammond
Because he's too busy shunning me!
Rod
Cal E. Rollins <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:537-4010...@storefull-3274.bay.webtv.net...
Sure....all leather...range of colours....studs.....on the inside.
Rod
> Rod,
>
> Hear, hear! Or however you Ukers in the provinces say it.
Oh Cal! "Ukers"!!??... "in the provinces"!!!????.....That's naaaaasty man!
;-)
You keep talkin like that and it will be the last time we come to save your
arse in your next foreign adventure!
( Who is next by the way? Syria? Iran? France? NZ?)
"Hear, hear"?....I think what has you confused is our Oz (Republic
in waiting) tendency to shout- "Beer! Beer!" ;-)
> I find it astounding that whoever makes determinations of enemies of the
> Faith would leave out all the awful folk who daily make enemies with
> their weird ultra-right and conservative nonsense and just plain rude
> behaviour splashing pig shite and slops all over cyberspace in the name
> of Baha'i religiosity.
Precisely Cal...The only damage done that surpasses that of the fundo
fruitloops is the gallery of lacklustre limpwrist who sit idle and let them
get away with it.
> With those porcine guys and gals on our side,
> enemies must find themselves well-served. Great fun. And thanks.
Not "fun" no more mate....I've had enough....I don't have a "side" anymore.
No team, no community of faith....freelance, independent, non aligned
and disassociated.
Who would want to be involved with a community that displays such
callous disregard for its members?
Rod, a bloody long way from the UK and happy about it ;-)
Rod
> "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:<buo973$kbeg5$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Rod" <kas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:8ccded73.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Go right ahead...show me otherwise...show me how you confronted
> > > > Joplins or Susans allegations....my recolection is that only one TRB
> > > > participant stood
> > > > up to the formers lies...and he, Paul Hammond, is a non Baha'i.
> > >
> > > Ah ha! Cough! A Major Ingram there! Me remembers not being behind the
> door
> > > in kicking Joplin's sanctimonious arse!
> >
> > Shit Dermod....you don't count...you shoot at anything BIGS that moves!
> ;-)
>
> Yeah! But I keep missing She Who Thinks She Ought To Be Obeyed.
Has she received the instruction to shun you yet?
> > > Oh dear! Another non-BIGS!
> >
> > Yea....bloody remarkable isn't it...time and time again some fundo
> > fruitloop crawls up out of the woodwork and exposes the rotten core
> > of the culture and the BIGS nod, wink and clap them on the shoulder.
> > The only ones who consistently challenge the nutters, call for principled
> > behaviour and demand they cease evasion and substantiate are non Baha'is
> > (or Baha'is deemed heretic by BIGS).
>
> Doesn't surprise me at all! NON-BIGS RULE! OK! I know that dates me but it
> still sounds good.
Oh it doesn't surprise me that the non BIGS display common decency....but
I thought the online BIGS might at least pretend...or practice...or attempt
a bit of transformative roll-play-roll-expectation.......but as Bluebottle
says- "Not a sossage".
> > (My eldest daughter has been lurking and watching proceedings, she thinks
> > your funny,
>
> A most perspicacious and wise young lady!
Indeed she is...I'm toying with the notion of cutting her loose on
TRB...it being such a warm and freindly family Baha'i environment.
Living in an isolated rural area with no functioning LSA/community
she has only met/experienced Baha'is 'in passing'- Travel teachers,
groups of youth etc.
It would be good for her to see how Baha'is operate 'at home' here
on TRB...relaxed with their feet up...at ease and warm in the glow
of consultative fellowship.
I think she is ready for independent investigation of truth ;-)
> I'm starting to like her already!
I liked her from day one to year thirteen....then not at all....now
at seventeen her frontal lobe has activated and we converse beyond
contemptous grunts.
> > she also thinks we are both- "Hairy old computer nerds who ought
> > to go out and get some real freinds instead of wasting our time
> bitchslapping
> > idiots".....
>
> She obviously hasn't tried it yet! Sling the keyboard to her and have her
> sample the delights of abusing hypocrisy!
She has warmed to these delights in daily confronting the parental
hypocrisy of the "Maybe" that clearly indicated "I promice".
The keyboard is at her disposal....though usualy engaged in 'SIMS'-
the virtual family game (parents and siblings under total control).
> > my daughter has a mouth, a point and no interest in things Baha'i
>
> Even wiser than I first thought. You're a lucky man! Does she make the
> coffee for you?
Yes, yes and yes.....the latter is usualy a good indicator that the TV,
computer, more money or taxi and driver should be placed at her disposal.
Expect a missive Dermod....a teenager can but raise the tone of debate round
here ;-)
Rod.
Rod
>
> Me, I've never so much as served as an assistant to the Auxiliary Board.
No surprise there.
Dermod Ryder
moves!
> > ;-)
> >
> > Yeah! But I keep missing She Who Thinks She Ought To Be Obeyed.
>
> Has she received the instruction to shun you yet?
Only from me and she's so accustomed to not obeying me that ......
unfortunately!
> > Doesn't surprise me at all! NON-BIGS RULE! OK! I know that dates me but
it
> > still sounds good.
>
> Oh it doesn't surprise me that the non BIGS display common decency....but
> I thought the online BIGS might at least pretend...or practice...or
attempt
> a bit of transformative roll-play-roll-expectation.......but as Bluebottle
> says- "Not a sossage".
At risk of turning ot serious - I think the soirit of the age has penetrated
the masses of humanity to an infinitely greater degre than the BIGS.
Guardianolatry has retarded their development. The poor bastards have no
concept of the joy of living - there is no Bahai humour, nuttin to laugh at
.. apart from the Grumpies!
> > > (My eldest daughter has been lurking and watching proceedings, she
thinks
> > > your funny,
> >
> > A most perspicacious and wise young lady!
>
> Indeed she is...I'm toying with the notion of cutting her loose on
> TRB...it being such a warm and freindly family Baha'i environment.
> Living in an isolated rural area with no functioning LSA/community
> she has only met/experienced Baha'is 'in passing'- Travel teachers,
> groups of youth etc.
> It would be good for her to see how Baha'is operate 'at home' here
> on TRB...relaxed with their feet up...at ease and warm in the glow
> of consultative fellowship.
> I think she is ready for independent investigation of truth ;-)
I would agree - wheel her on! And I promise to be polite ... at first!
> > I'm starting to like her already!
>
> I liked her from day one to year thirteen....then not at all....now
> at seventeen her frontal lobe has activated and we converse beyond
> contemptous grunts.
Got the same experience with me own eldest!
<SNIP>
> > > my daughter has a mouth, a point and no interest in things Baha'i
> >
> > Even wiser than I first thought. You're a lucky man! Does she make the
> > coffee for you?
>
> Yes, yes and yes.....the latter is usualy a good indicator that the TV,
> computer, more money or taxi and driver should be placed at her disposal.
Wow! Parental experience of daughters is the same the whole world over.
Reminds me of a universal order, mebbe even a religion!
> Expect a missive Dermod....a teenager can but raise the tone of debate
round
> here ;-)
Cry havoc and let slip the musings of a teen! If she's a chip off the old
block, it ought to be fun!
Dermod Ryder
> >
> >
> >You said that we didn't get it from the AO. So I asked where you thought
we
> >got it. Have you thoughts on that question?
>
> Only what is implied from your posts. That is was someone the House might
have
> deemed potentially vulnerable to your influence. It also sounds like
something
> you guys said created doubts in this persons mind which caused them to
write to
> the House of Justice and the reply they received upset them.
Miss Marple has nothing to fear from you in the way of competition.
Freethought110
sekhm...@aol.com.nz (Sekhmet) wrote in message
> Why aren't you shunning me?
Because it's as sweet as honey watching you kept ripped apart by Rod
who is making all the same *exact* arguments and observations I have
made here for several years about your lot. But, fine, you wanna be
shunned, you are hereby shunned ;-)
Tis the season to be jolly!
Sekhmet
>sekhm...@aol.com.nz (Sekhmet) wrote in message
>> Why aren't you shunning me?
>
>Because it's as sweet as honey watching you kept ripped apart by Rod
>who is making all the same *exact* arguments and observations I have
>made here for several years about your lot.
Maybe you should check with Rod before claiming any kinship with him or his
debating technique-- he seems to take offense at any intimation that he might
resemble "you guys".
I concede, however, that there are similarities, at least on the surface. Both
of you set up straw-man arguments based on what you _think_ (or wish?) others
have said, rather than on what they actually said, while at the same time
engaging in ex post facto revisionism of your own positions in order to
backpedal out of verbal mistakes. You consistently fail to substantiate your
allegations while demanding substantion from others, and if you receive that
substantiation you either ignore it or spin-doctor it into something more to
your liking. You make blanket condemnations of entire groups of people based on
scant anecdotal evidence (and in your case, often on complete fabrications).
And you regularly deliver your pronouncements in supremely arrogant and
discourteous (and often profane) prose, as if it were your sole intent to
offend rather than to illuminate, yet take extreme umbrage yourselves if you
receive anything other than a subservient "yes, master" in return.
And of course it would never occur to either of you that anything could
possibly be wrong with either the tone or substance of your arguments.
>But, fine, you wanna be
>shunned, you are hereby shunned ;-)
Good. Although I should point out that it's your own fatwa you've been
violating, by addressing me.
>Tis the season to be jolly!
Yep!
--Sekhmet
Cal E. Rollins
Well everybody does agree that we Yanks don't know that much about
history. I was taught in
grad school (it wasn't one of Susan's classes in Mississippi Dip U) that
England and all her settlements and cultural depositories were American
colonies. I'm learning from my excursions on CNN and Internet that is
not so. It's just England. Now from what I heard today on CNN and MSN,
the CIA says there is going to be a civil war any day now in Iraq;
hence, America and England are going to give Iran our best shot.
Israel's got Syria well-covered. Heard anything about that Down Under?
--Cal
Freethought110
"Sekhmet" <sekhm...@aol.com.nz> wrote in message
news:20040124233928...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Nima wrote:
>
> scant anecdotal evidence (and in your case, often on complete
fabrications).
Yada yada yada yada, you show a baha'i cultist irrefutable evidence, and in
the Twilight Zone of their twisted, deciet-ridden minds it becomes anecdotal
evidence and complete fabrication. I ripped three shades of krikey out of
you bahooeeys and back again over NITV, to such an extent it together with
my posts (according to what my agents on the inside tell me) was hot topic
in at least three national conventions. That you don't choose to recognize
the fact does not change anything in the least, and besides big deal what
some fat ugly has-been demented female cultist redneck from the American Mid
West actually thinks!? The Truth already did its work superbly, your AO was
completely humiliated - ergo the November 2003 letter - and more on the AO's
political connections with the Pahlavis is yet to come :) Stay tuned (this
time I'm scanning original documents, too).
> >But, fine, you wanna be
> >shunned, you are hereby shunned ;-)
>
> Good. Although I should point out that it's your own fatwa you've been
> violating, by addressing me.
Not fatwa was issued. Would you like one specifically tailor made for you?
> Yep!
Indeed. I love watching Rod kick you disgusting and obnoxious cultists fools
hard in the groin. Much more power to him :) Tis a lovely season indeed.
> --Sekhmet
Don't you mean Sick Mut ;-P
Starr*
Yep - the 'religious' factions are all gathering for civil battles.
Meanwhile you've got more skull & bones people, like Kerry, gearing to
head up the US. You wonder what kind of secrets these 'leaders' told
in their coffins to keep them in line? Wonder what you would have said
if you were in one (the way you talk on all sides of thingz the big
boys may not have had anything to bank on). Then again, you and your
queen might have been in one too for all we know and that would
explain a lot of the speak here on trb.
Starr*
Sekhmet
>Yada yada yada yada...
Thank you very much for illustrating so perfectly what I was talking about.
Case proven!
--Sekhmet
Cal E. Rollins
She ain't my queen. I'm off pork and cow too. Mainly because of Mad
Cow in Oregon. But, true, since she's moderated considerably I like
her. She can talk a mean Covenant when called upon or challenged and
can be depended upon to have the right writings on hand. Actually,
she's quicker than Google. Sometimes she has the tendency to wing it
which gets her occasionally into trouble, however. But that's not
often. But you're right. I am a fence sitter. Some folk call such a
moderate with a leaning towards the underdog. Hell, I'd even support
Paul if he needed it. --Cal
Starr*
> Starr,
>
> She ain't my queen.
Well it is true you are not 'always' bowing and kowtowing.
I'm off pork and cow too. Mainly because of Mad
> Cow in Oregon.
I guess you'd rather do the chicken scratch and get The Bird Flu. Heck
I've even seen you eat a lamb and do sheep.
But, true, since she's moderated considerably I like
> her. She can talk a mean Covenant when called upon or challenged and
> can be depended upon to have the right writings on hand.
Yeah, if you like bastardized, uncontexualized, deconstructed (cut off
from the Author's intent), convoluted, flatland translations to rule
your Being bow down, not a pretty site/sight.
Actually,
> she's quicker than Google. Sometimes she has the tendency to wing it
> which gets her occasionally into trouble, however. But that's not
> often. But you're right. I am a fence sitter. Some folk call such a
> moderate with a leaning towards the underdog. Hell, I'd even support
> Paul if he needed it. --Cal
Even though you are a fence sitter I like you - it must be because you
'do care' about the underdog, fleas and all. Here's a poem inspired
by the Prophet-Poetess Tahirih and Her living Spirit - can you relate?
REUNION
Beloved Mystery of Effulgent Glory and Might.
What is it Thou that hast done? Transcendent though Thou be you have
placed the essence of your Sun in me, only that it may forever seek
reunion.
It is only through your creative force pulsating in my Being that
there is any knowingness of Thee, as it also informs of my remoteness.
What is it Thou hast done?
Your creative force beats in my heart expressing and manifesting in
the heavens and the earth. When I am the wind I fly, I caress, I
twist, I turn yet I long for reunion with Thee. What is it Thou hast
done?
When I am the perfume that permeates the either I waft sweet smelling
fragrances of numbers untold, yet I long for reunion,. What is it Thou
hast done?
As the ocean I know calmness, I know fury and jubilation, and I know
soft flowing tides; yet how I know my remoteness and long for reunion
with Thee.
When I am the smallest seed bursting with the light of your endless
love I am still in search of Your embrace.
As the music and wondrous sounds vibrating in the Universe I am
enraptured with delight, only to further ignite my fire for that day
of blessed reunion. What is it Thou hast done?
No matter which world I transverse impassioned to reflect your Sun, it
is only reunion that brings peace. What is it Thou hast done?
O Brightness beyond all knowing! In your mercy and in your grace there
is peace, joy, abounding love for all that is, and great exhalation
when the splendor of merging into the Sea of Oneness is granted to
this soul. What, indeed, is it Thou hast done?
In the continuous living love and flow of light
Starr* Saffa,
January 2004
Freethought110
> Nima wrote:
> >Yada yada yada yada...
>
> Thank you very much for illustrating so perfectly what I was talking
about.
ROTFLMAO :)) Actually, you have just completly and incontrovertibly proven
Rod's case.
> Case proven!
Your case? LOL :)) Proven for whom, the inmates of the looney asylum called
a religion whom you are a resident of? Yup, most definitely :)
Freethought110
pretends to.
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:537-4010...@storefull-3274.bay.webtv.net...
> Nima,
>
> I knew I should have learned Persian when the Guardian said I should.
> I'm missing the translation of all those barbs in Persian. I'm jealous
> that people like Susan, fluent in the Languages of Revelation, are
> getting what I'm missing and passing it on to the litter. --Cal
>
Paul Hammond
> "Sekhmet" <sekhm...@aol.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:20040124233928...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > Nima wrote:
> >
> > scant anecdotal evidence (and in your case, often on complete
> fabrications).
>
> you bahooeeys and back again over NITV, to such an extent it together with
> my posts (according to what my agents on the inside tell me) was hot topic
> in at least three national conventions.
I don't recall this incident. Did it happen in an
alternative universe, or have Cal's pixies been
speaking to you again?
>
> > >But, fine, you wanna be
> > >shunned, you are hereby shunned ;-)
> >
> > Good. Although I should point out that it's your own fatwa you've been
> > violating, by addressing me.
>
> Not fatwa was issued. Would you like one specifically tailor made for you?
>
You were the one that said you weren't talking to Sekhmet
any more.
Like Susie says, *I'm* no 1 - Sekhmet dear, I'm sorry but it
seems Hazini can't manage to remember to shun more than one
person at once!
Pual
Sekhmet
>Nima wrote:
>> Not fatwa was issued. Would you like one specifically tailor made for
>you?
>>
>
>You were the one that said you weren't talking to Sekhmet
>any more.
More than once, even. And just recently he issued that order to shun ALL
Baha'is in good standing, remember?
>Like Susie says, *I'm* no 1 - Sekhmet dear, I'm sorry but it
>seems Hazini can't manage to remember to shun more than one
>person at once!
What a pity.
But don't worry, Paul, I'm not jealous of your well-earned position as Nima's
favorite shunnee, nor Susan's position as primary Letter of Negation either.
;-)
--Sekhmet
Freethought110
the mole together with Baron von Munchhausen and his ballooon on TRB
these days.
sekhm...@aol.com.nz (Sekhmet) wrote in message > More than once, even. And just recently he issued that order to shun ALL
> Baha'is in good standing, remember?
I said we Bayanis shun baha'is as a matter of course. There was no
order or command directed at a specific person. It was a general
statement. Of course BIGS and mole being the quintessential buffoons
and dishonest sleaze-bags seem to wish to imply something else.
> What a pity.
> But don't worry, Paul, I'm not jealous of your well-earned position as Nima's
> favorite shunnee, nor Susan's position as primary Letter of Negation either.
> ;-)
Ah, yes, Palu the HamHead and his rants. Funny, that in this her hour
of need and support the so called chief Karenist acolyte can't even
muster in himself enough to jump to her mentor's defense publically
even once on TRB, but must jibe at Fred, Cal, George or myself
instead. It's now becoming more obvious than ever even to some of the
liberals that this jerk is not who and what he says he is and is
definitely no liberal, dissident or friend. Like I said, you baha'is
and your fellow-travellers aren't exactly very smart and are core
stupid to be able to cover your tracks.
Sekhmet
even.
>And just recently he issued that order to shun ALL
>> Baha'is in good standing, remember?
>
>I said we Bayanis shun baha'is as a matter of course.
Right. And I'm a Baha'i. So why are you still talking to me?
--Sekhmet
Freethought110
Are you daft? Don't answer that one. How am I talking to you?! Talking
implies a communicative exchange (usually simultaneous or within a close
framework of time) through the medium of _audible_ words which are heard and
whereby there is a simultaneous audible reciprocation in such communication.
We are _writing_ messages on a USENET board called talk.religion.bahai. This
is not talking. It is writing :)
Duh!
Freethought110
Sekhmet
Duh yourself! Never heard of a metaphor?
So why are you still C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.I.N.G with someone to whom you've
written specifically more than once that you will no longer respond to or even
read, and who is furthermore a member of an organization which you claim to
shun altogether?
--Sekhmet
Sekhmet
>Yea or nay. Do you desire to be shunned by moi?
It's totally up to you. Personally I find it rather amusing to watch you make a
fool of yourself in front of everybody with your hypocrisy, but I wouldn't
particularly miss it if you were to stop.
--Sekhmet
Paul Hammond
> Seems like the pixies are indeed flying in the head of the BIGS and
> the mole together with Baron von Munchhausen and his ballooon on TRB
> these days.
>
> sekhm...@aol.com.nz (Sekhmet) wrote in message > More than once, even. And just recently he issued that order to shun ALL
> > Baha'is in good standing, remember?
>
> I said we Bayanis shun baha'is as a matter of course. There was no
> order or command directed at a specific person. It was a general
> statement. Of course BIGS and mole being the quintessential buffoons
> and dishonest sleaze-bags seem to wish to imply something else.
>
> > What a pity.
> > But don't worry, Paul, I'm not jealous of your well-earned position as Nima's
> > favorite shunnee, nor Susan's position as primary Letter of Negation either.
> > ;-)
>
> Ah, yes, Palu the HamHead and his rants. Funny, that in this her hour
> of need and support the so called chief Karenist acolyte can't even
> muster in himself enough to jump to her mentor's defense publically
> even once on TRB, but must jibe at Fred, Cal, George or myself
> instead.
1) I see you've decided you're not shunning me any more, either.
2) I don't require lectures on friendship from *you*, the
arch-betrayer of friends.
3) Since you've decided that you owe Karen an apology for behaving
to her like a shit, and no-one else around here appears to
be attacking her, what makes this "her hour of need"?
> It's now becoming more obvious than ever even to some of the
> liberals that this jerk is not who and what he says he is and is
> definitely no liberal, dissident or friend.
Sorry, which liberals was that again?
Once more, I am asking you to substantiate your pathetic
ad-homs.
btw - I am *male*, possessing the cojones which *you* could
not lay claim to - what with your wild talk of beating up
Tongans, but with you keeping away from me because you
are chicken-shit.
I don't think a coward like you should be calling someone
else's masculinity into question.
Go away,
Paul
Freethought110
> So why are you still C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.I.N.G with someone to whom you've
> written specifically more than once that you will no longer respond to or even
> read, and who is furthermore a member of an organization which you claim to
> shun altogether?
Because in your case I quite enjoy rubbing in your nose in your own
shite <grin>!
p.s. Tell that mole Palu the Hamhead, that any time, any place,
anywhere he wishes to prove his absent masculinity to yours truly, he
can do so and I will be there in person. It would be my utmost
pleasure to hand his sorry HamHead into his own hands on a silver
platter.
Freethought110
> Nima wrote:
> >Yea or nay. Do you desire to be shunned by moi?
>
> It's totally up to you. Personally I find it rather amusing to watch you make a
> fool of yourself in front
ROTFLMAO :)) I think it is pretty obvious who is the *real* fool here,
and it certainly ain't moi. Rod has made darn sure of that. But, once
again, yea or nay: do you wish to be shunned?
Paul Hammond
So, this is your attempt to *not* talk to me? "Please tell
your friend Paul that I still wear short pants and live on
the playschool playground"?
Diddums!
Face it - you were the man making with the "big talk" about
how I had to look out for myself because you were on the
way to track me down.
"Before Christmas" you said.
But you chickened out of that meeting. What a coward!
Paul
Sekhmet
>NIma wrote:
>> p.s. Tell that mole Palu the Hamhead, that any time, any place,
>> anywhere he wishes to prove his absent masculinity to yours truly, he
>> can do so and I will be there in person. It would be my utmost
>> pleasure to hand his sorry HamHead into his own hands on a silver
>> platter.
>
>So, this is your attempt to *not* talk to me? "Please tell
>your friend Paul that I still wear short pants and live on
>the playschool playground"?
>
>Diddums!
Laughable, isn't it?
--Sekhmet
Freethought110
can do so in person rather than behind the safety of a computer
monitor. I live on the Gold Coast in Australia and my name and address
is listed in all directories. Unless this sock puppet of the AO's can
prove otherwise, he remains nothing but some tough-talking internet
coward and beyond a doubt a mole of the AO's. Besides, visiting the
tomb of Azal in Cyprus last year was a bigger priority than coming to
Limey Island and teaching a demented loser without a life and AO mole
baha'i bully ponce that he is a demented loser and a AO mole bully
baha'i ponce :)
Freethought110
> Laughable, isn't it?
Your existence and the fact that an AO hack like you and Palu Hamhead
lick each other's toes in public -- most definitely and absolutely!
;-P
Rod
> > Nima wrote:
> > >Yea or nay. Do you desire to be shunned by moi?
> >
> > It's totally up to you. Personally I find it rather amusing to watch you make a
> > fool of yourself in front
>
> ROTFLMAO :)) I think it is pretty obvious who is the *real* fool here,
> and it certainly ain't moi. Rod has made darn sure of that.
Yup......Rod was a bloody fool to expect that his questions (to Seckmet,
Susan or Pat) would ever be answered.
Paul Hammond
Why, can't you remember what you said?
Poor diddums!
(psst - Rod hasn't been arguing with Sekhmet here recently)
Paul