Fanatics Manipulate Googe Search Engine Directory
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **
at work manipulating and distorting what's available on the
Internet, this time on Google's Directory. Compare the Google
Directory for about March, 2004, with the second diminished
and current Google Directory for Alternative Views
Society > Religion and Spirituality > Bahá'í > Alternative Views
WAS
The Bahá'í World Faith - http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
A view of the Bahá'í Faith by "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance",
a group that provides perspectives of major religious groups for the purpose
of promoting religious tolerance.
Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience -
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
A collection of viewpoints critical of the Bahá'í Faith and the Universal
House of Justice, calling for greater freedom of conscience within the
Faith, as collected by Frederick Glaysher.
The Religion of Baha'i - http://www.probe.org/docs/baha'i.html
A critique of the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective; its origins,
major beliefs, contrasts between Christianity and Baha'i, its organization
and goals, and suggested weaknesses of the Baha'i system of belief. By Lou
Whitworth.
The Baha'i Faith -
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu//nrms/bahi.html
New Religious Movements' profile of the Baha'i Faith, links with abstracts,
and a print bibliography. Includes references to bogus Baha'i groups.
Where's the Troops? - http://uibm.freeyellow.com/index.html
A critique of the Baha'i Faith in the United States, by Darrick Evenson,
from a Mormon perspective, offering an introduction to the Universal
Integrated Baha'i Message (U.I.B.M.).
Unenrolled Baha'i - Yahoo Discussion Group -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unenrolledbahai
An online support group for persons who identify with some of the Teachings
of Baha'u'llah while not being enrolled with the Baha'i Administration.
Members only Yahoo group.
The Baha'i Faith -
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/bahailinks.html
A critique of the Baha'i Administration and its treatment of Baha'i
liberals, from person who has resigned his Baha'i membership, but claims to
practice Baha'i privately.
Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha'i Community -
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html
Cultic Studies Journal article about the internal stresses in the Baha'i
community, and the Baha'i administration's attempts to supress free
expression among adherents.
The Baha'i Faith: An Introduction for Evangelical Christians -
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/christianintro.html
A viewpoint on the Baha'i Faith written to address issues of interest to
Christians. WARNING: This site displays unauthorised photographic
representations of Baha'u'llah which may offend Baha'is.
NOW:
The Bahá'í World Faith - http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm
A view of the Bahá'í Faith by "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance",
a group that provides perspectives of major religious groups for the purpose
of promoting religious tolerance.
The Religion of Baha'i - http://www.probe.org/docs/baha'i.html
A critique of the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective; its origins,
major beliefs, contrasts between Christianity and Baha'i, its organization
and goals, and suggested weaknesses of the Baha'i system of belief. By Lou
Whitworth.
The Baha'i Faith -
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu//nrms/bahi.html
New Religious Movements' profile of the Baha'i Faith, links with abstracts,
and a print bibliography. Includes references to bogus Baha'i groups.
Unenrolled Baha'i - Yahoo Discussion Group -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unenrolledbahai
An online support group for persons who identify with some of the Teachings
of Baha'u'llah while not being enrolled with the Baha'i Administration.
Members only Yahoo group.
The Baha'i Faith: An Introduction for Evangelical Christians -
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/christianintro.html
A viewpoint on the Baha'i Faith written to address issues of interest to
Christians. WARNING: This site displays unauthorised photographic
representations of Baha'u'llah which may offend Baha'is.
--
It is unlikely that Google's technical people did this on their own. We've
witness the conspiratorial activities of Kohli and other fanatics of late
attacking enmass the ISP of Alvine, as they have others, many, many
times. It would be true to form that something similar was done with
Google....
Non-bahais might want to read or skim, for documentation of
similar practics, "The Bahai Technique":
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
--
See 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
In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia
University Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i
administration has increasingly come under the control of
fundamentalists, "stressing scriptural literalism . . . theocracy,
censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key
democratic values (196)."
Mr. Bad Judgement
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship ** wrote:
> As has so often been done, fundamentalists have been hard
> at work manipulating and distorting what's available on the
> Internet,
It's just aweful, iddenit?
Why, I used to read, "Barry Kosmin and Seymour Lachman estimated 28,000
adult US Bahá'ís in their 1993 book "One Nation Under God." Fredrick
Glaysher estimates 26,600." on the Toronto Religious Tolerance URL,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm, as if, that guy, Frederick
Glaysher, with his seat of the pants "26,600" number, were SOME HOW,
SOME WAY league as a published demographer in religious identification,
like Barry Ksomin? I mean REALLY! Who'd have believed that the folks
writing these web pages could have been so fooled as to put a gadfly
like Glaysher on equal footing with a real academic in his real field of
study?
oBVIOUSLY, its fundies like Glaysher trying to distort the picture!
Do you remember how they tried to get the Britanica to revise its
estimates? The Britanica laughed at them, and then Glaysher posted it
here? Clearly, the deceived fanatic just did not get it.
<< Hello.
<<
<< Your comment has been bouncing around our email network, from
<< editors to World Data authorities, and the resolution is that
<< we would like to revise our figures for Baha'i membership
<< worldwide provided we can come across hard statistical data
<< to go by. Given that our current figures are based on the
<< best available statistics currently at our disposal, however,
<< we will not be able to make such a change unless you can point
<< us in the direction of publications that indicate exaggerated
<< membership totals in the areas you mention. Do you know of
<< such a reference source that we could consult?
<<
<< Sincerely,
<<
<< Mark Diller, Ph.D.
<< Online Editor, Religion
<< Britannica.com, Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<< From: Trumbull, Charles
<< Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 8:54 AM
<< To: Sturgis, Joseph; Diller, Mark
<< Subject: RE: False Bahai membership statistics on Encyclopedia
<< Britannica
<<
<< Our figure this year for total Bahais worldwide is about 6.9
<< million. I'm sure the authors of the table would be interested
<< in any hard statistics any of these readers may have that
<< indicate our figures are too high.
<<
<< Charlie
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sad but true, Fred: the web has been popular for 10 years; any kook can
post any conspiracy theory, not every conspiracy theory is all that
interesting to everyone else; folks in places like gooogle, and
Britannica, are more interested in facts than in foamings and rantings..
- Mr. Bad
Paul Hammond
> ** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship ** wrote:
>
> > As has so often been done, fundamentalists have been hard
> > at work manipulating and distorting what's available on the
> > Internet,
>
> It's just aweful, iddenit?
>
> Why, I used to read, "Barry Kosmin and Seymour Lachman estimated 28,000
> adult US Bahá'ís in their 1993 book "One Nation Under God." Fredrick
> Glaysher estimates 26,600." on the Toronto Religious Tolerance URL,
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm, as if, that guy, Frederick
> Glaysher, with his seat of the pants "26,600" number, were SOME HOW,
> SOME WAY league as a published demographer in religious identification,
> like Barry Ksomin? I mean REALLY! Who'd have believed that the folks
> writing these web pages could have been so fooled as to put a gadfly
> like Glaysher on equal footing with a real academic in his real field of
> study?
>
> oBVIOUSLY, its fundies like Glaysher trying to distort the picture!
>
Yes,
That site is generally an excellent source of balanced and
informative essays. i only just recently discovered it, and
I was shocked to find that they were quoting a ranter like
Fred on level terms with people who have actually done some
work to try to count the size of the Baha'i community for
real. I guess even the most intelligent writers can be
temporarily confused by a determined self-publicist like
Glaysher.
Still, they seem to be open-minded people. I guess, if enough
people write to tell them about it, they'll set someone to
look seriously into Fred's site, and edit this essay should
they decide that Fred doesn't know what he's talking about
after all.
Incidentally, I love the way they publish some of the hate
mail they receive, only to poke gentle fun at it, and the
people who have written it. They don't get all steamed
up about it, like Fred did when he accused our very own
George Flaming of being a writer of AO sanctioned hate
mail.
Unlike religious tolerance, Fred is not so good at updating
his website when the facts overtake his assertions.
Paul
Susan Maneck
I think the 28,000 figure came from a sample pull. Juan ran with that figure
before Fred did, as I recall. Thing is, a couple of years later the same pull
was putting our numbers out at more than 80K!
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/
To subscribe: use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.net
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **
unsuspecting technical people, who don't know any better or anything
about the actually history of fanatics among my fellow bahais, are
discussed below:
"Slanderous Vilification" = 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, Deceive, 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing in 1941, Mirza Ahmad Sohrab may have been the earliest
observer to note the Baha'i Technique: "The writer of the article in
*Bahai News reaches the height of his slanderous vilification
when he likens Mr. and Mrs. Chanler and their Bahai friends *to
those enemies that preceded them: Subhi-Ezel, Mohamet Ali,
Kheirella and their like" (138). Broken Silence: The Story of Today's
Struggle for Religious Freedom. New York: Universal Publishing, 1942.
Reprinted. H-Bahai: Lansing, Michigan, 2004.
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/sohrab/BS.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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
Paul Hammond
> Dear Paul,
>
> I think the 28,000 figure came from a sample pull. Juan ran with that figure
> before Fred did, as I recall. Thing is, a couple of years later the same pull
> was putting our numbers out at more than 80K!
>
> warmest, Susan
>
For "pull" read "poll", right?
I recall Pat posting info on the updated Kosmin survey about a
year ago on trb.
So, if Fred is being objective then surely there can be no
reason to continue to quote the 1993 figure now that the
2003 figure has come out, right?
Maybe that's something else someone ought to mention to
the good fellows at religioustolerance.org?
Paul
Freethought110
hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be
a bartender living in Cambridge, UK. The salary of bartenders in the
UK does not make for much of a lifestyle or pay many bills. Hammond
claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the
baha'i administration on several lists. Do not buy into his hype.
OBSERVERS BEWARE: Paul Hammond AO AGENT
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message
Susan Maneck
>So, if Fred is being objective then surely there can be no
>reason to continue to quote the 1993 figure now that the
>2003 figure has come out, right?
No one ever pretended Fred was being objective, otherwise he wouldn't keep
posting stuff about the case in New Mexico without mentioning it has been
thrown out of court!
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **
Sufi Baha'i
You can pass yourself off as an "amateur demographer." Mate, is there
no end to your web of lies?
You viciously attack people, anyone who's ever opposed you in any way,
shape or form gets their name and email address published again and
again in USENET so that they are continually bombarded by the SPAM
collectors.
Vengence is mine, saith Fred Glaysher...
'"** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **" <BI*P*G...@LIBERTY.COM> wrote in message news:<2ksu80F...@uni-berlin.de>...
Paul Hammond
> Lurkers and non-baha'is should beware that Paul Hammond is a paid
> hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK.
Lurkers and non-baha'is should be aware that Nima Hazini has
made these false claims about me for years, without providing
proof, despite being asked to substantiate many times.
He has also claimed to have had me destroyed twice, and yet, here
I still am, thus proving he has nothing but an oversupply of
impotence.
Hammond claims to be
> a bartender living in Cambridge, UK.
I do not claim to live in Cambridge. But it is a nice town.
> The salary of bartenders in the
> UK does not make for much of a lifestyle or pay many bills.
You got that right!
> Hammond
> claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the
> baha'i administration on several lists.
I yam what I yam, and I say what I think, despite Nima's attempts
to censor me, bully me, threats to my person, and other attempts
to shut me up.
Nima's problem is that he can't stand independent thought,
and thinks everyone should worship him and think like he
thinks.
> Do not buy into his hype.
>
I don't do hype. I'm not the one claiming to be God around
here, Bob.
Yeah - and have you read that Canadian religious tolerance
site? It's a work of art.
Sometime, they'll get around to updating their information on
the size of the American Baha'i community. maybe you can
forward this post to them, that might help?
Palu, Nima-destroyer.
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **
observer to note the Baha'i Technique: "The writer of the article in
when he likens Mr. and Mrs. Chanler and their Bahai friends *to
those enemies that preceded them: Subhi-Ezel, Mohamet Ali,
Kheirella and their like" (138).
Broken Silence: The Story of Today's
Struggle for Religious Freedom. New York: Universal Publishing, 1942.
Reprinted. H-Bahai: Lansing, Michigan, 2004.
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/sohrab/BS.htm
Susan Maneck
>Manic and Co as a direct personal attack
Right. Everyone has seen how fervently I defend Ruhi. ;-}
** CAUTION > Bahai Censorship **
"Slanderous vilification" (138).
Mirza Ahmad Sohrab. Broken Silence. The Story of Today's Struggle
for Religious Freedom. New York: Universal Publishing, 1942.
Reprinted. H-Bahai: Lansing, Michigan, 2004.
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/sohrab/BS.htm
Sohrab's entire book may be downloaded in one click. 21 megabytes.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/Sohrab.zip
Freethought110
Paul Hammond
> Lurkers and non-baha'is should beware that Paul Hammond is a paid
> hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be
> a bartender living in Cambridge, UK. The salary of bartenders in the
> UK does not make for much of a lifestyle or pay many bills. Hammond
> claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the
> baha'i administration on several lists. Do not buy into his hype.
>
I already told you where you went wrong in the earlier message.
Why are you reposting these lies and mistakes without
correction?
Paul
Cal E. Rollins
Didn't you write a while back on Zuhur that you wine and dine this girl
in the English countryside and drive her around in your Rolls? Well you
can't do that on pub salary even if you get great tips, so somebody from
the Mountain Top must be supplementing your income quite nicely. I'd
love to be the fly on the Chamber Wall to hear what the Learned are
saying about you like we heard about Susan. Where is Journalist when we
need him or her? --Cal
Freethought110
hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be
a bartender living in Cambridge, UK. The salary of bartenders in the
claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the
believe his plausible denials.
Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.04070...@posting.google.com...
Lack of imagination ... fresh material ... a vain attempt to catch up on
George's spam fest ... the Fred technique .... the list is endless, I could
go on and on .... but I won't!
>
> Paul
Milissa
freetho...@yahoo.com (Freethought110) wrote in message news:<83b59396.0407...@posting.google.com>...
> Lurkers and non-baha'is should beware that Paul Hammond is a paid
> hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be
> a bartender living in Cambridge, UK. The salary of bartenders in the
> UK does not make for much of a lifestyle or pay many bills. Hammond
> claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the
> baha'i administration on several lists. Do not buy into his hype.
>
> OBSERVERS BEWARE: Paul Hammond AO AGENT
Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
Peace,
Milissa
Steve Marshall
>Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
Freethought110
Enough to pay him to sit behind a monitor all day long and act the
baha'i thug all over baha'i cyberspace. Bartending does not pay the
rent, the bills or replenish savings accounts.
> Peace,
No Peace without Justice!
> Milissa
Nima
Mr. Bad Judgement
Milissa wrote:
> Hi Nima-
>
>(snip)
> Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
>
Good to see you!
I think Paul is being paid in votive prayers. These are not legal
tender per se, but, as you know, they really mean a lot to agnostics.
- Mr. Bad
Hess
Cal E. Rollins
Why should Paul get paid the same as you? The cost of living is quite
high in England, so whatever they're paying him ought to be sufficient
to help him live his profligate and high-on-the-hog English Baha'i
lifestyle. --Cal
Swiss Heritage
> Milissa wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
>
> Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
And double what I'm being paid.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Jim
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<19253-40...@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net>...
Swiss Heritage
> I think Paul is being paid in votive prayers.
You got me there. I had to look that one up.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Steve Marshall
>> Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
>
>And double what I'm being paid.
That's OK. I've just recalculated, and I get double what both of you
get. Even when your payments are combined.
Dermod Ryder
> >Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
>
> Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
But not as much as I get! Of course, I'm worth every penny of it!
PS Welcome back Milissa! You been doing anything interesting since you were
last here?
Dermod Ryder
"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fe095d0.04071...@posting.google.com...
Face it Jim, you're not even worth the half of it!
>
> Jim
Dermod Ryder
Typical AO behaviour! Pay the guy in dud money!
Hess
"Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lbqieF...@uni-berlin.de...
yeah, laughing at your idiotic posts.
Susan Maneck
Good to see you back!
Susan Maneck
>Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
>
Which is double what I make.
Susan Maneck
>And double what I'm being paid.
Damn, you stole my line!
Steve Marshall
>Damn, you stole my line!
I guess we both did the math(s).
He said sheepishly.
ka kite
Steve
Dermod Ryder
"Hess" <nomail...@deal.com> wrote in message
news:HF3Ic.11675$sD4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > PS Welcome back Milissa! You been doing anything interesting since you
> were
> > last here?
>
> yeah, laughing at your idiotic posts.
I doubt that very much! Unlike you, Milissa has a working brain between her
ears whilst yours is between your legs!
Freethought110
hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be
the UK does not make for much of a lifestyle, pay bills, make the rent
or put food on the table on any consistent basis. Hammond claims to be
an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the baha'i
on inside information Hammond's infiltration into the so called
liberal camp was engineered by the national satanic assembly of the UK
on the uhj's advice in 2000. Since that time Hammond has been
instrumental in the well orchestrated thuggery of the fake so called
opposition led by the Marshall-Ryder mangy pack of wolves in sheep
clothing dumbing down any dissent against the powers that be whilst
using the cover of being so called liberals: a camp which has been
paid off by the baha'i cult's leadership, is a co-opted arm of that
corrupt system and is now for all practical purposes an integral arm
of that system. Do not buy into Paul Hammond's hype nor believe in his
plausible denials and transparent lies.
Hess
Cal E. Rollins
Sounds racist? Where'd you get the idea that the Administration is an
equal opportunity employer?
Paul is naturally going to get more than Steve. That's what Down Under
means. Susan, of course, gets more than both of them, since she's
'Murican, obviously knows more and is of greater worth, consequently.
Pat's anybody's guess. Maybe he just gets an occasional honorarium.
But I'm not like some folk, begrudging them their under-the-covenant,
hence tax-free money. What they have to do is dirty work, yet somebody's
got to do it, it seems to me. Have you talked to your local garbage
collector lately? Hard, nasty, and rarely rewarding work. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Yes, now I know you're either a Muslim or a good Baha'i by that pervert
comment. And definitely a macho male. It is only those three
categories who'd call the person with their head between your legs a
pervert. And I know you're not American, because the law here proclaims
you both are equal participants in perversion, although you can't be
punished if it's in private and under mutual consent or heterosexually
married as in the Baha'i case. --Cal
Paul Hammond
> Paul,
>
> Didn't you write a while back on Zuhur that you wine and dine this girl
> in the English countryside and drive her around in your Rolls?
No.
This would be an example of you making things up.
Whereas, your reference to my earlier "ten foot willy"
comments was an example of you getting things out of
context.
One day before hell freezes over, may we see an example of
you getting something right?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> >Out of curiosity, just how much do you think Paul is being paid?
>
> Exactly the same amount that I'm being paid, I expect.
I'll probably go with that one!
Thanks for providing the first true statement to this thread,
Steve!
Paul Hammond
Your name Milissa, Hess?
My guess is that she has indeed been laughing at Steve and
Dermod's posts, but not for the same reasons you do.
Paul
Cal E. Rollins
I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd dated
some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to carry on
in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her walk
back to London or some such thing. I remember feeling sad for both of
you, your deprivation and her having to pay so dearly for exercising
good judgement. I admit that I just assumed the Administration paid you
enough for a Rolls Royce, since everybody in Israel, including the
Patestinian garderners, drive around in Mercedes, or so it seemed to me.
--Cal
Paul Hammond
So Cal,
have you forgotten your zero times table?
Susan gets paid both twice as much as me, and half as much
as me.
I get paid three times more than Steve, and a fifth as much
as Steve.
Nima, of course, receives infinitely more money than I do
from the Baha'i AO.
There is only one possible solution for these simultaneous
equations, x=0.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> Paul,
>
> I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd dated
> some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to carry on
> in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her walk
> back to London or some such thing.
What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
life on here.
> I remember feeling sad for both of
> you, your deprivation and her having to pay so dearly for exercising
> good judgement.
So, you just decided to make up this bullshit? Who will ever
believe that a burk like you ever felt sorry for me while
you were making up lies about me?
FU asshole!
Paul
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
> crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message
> news:<23099-40...@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>...
>> Paul,
>>
>> I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd
dated
>> some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to
carry on
>> in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her
walk
>> back to London or some such thing.
>
> What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
> life on here.
Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul. You
have discussed you romantic personal life (all 2-5 weeks of it) on
TRB. here is your post. Long runs Paul the little fox until
eventually he gets caught.
Baldrick
12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
--- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
I mean,
> I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
Hi!
> and secret rituals involving
> ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
>
Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
I was off having a life (I worked Friday, Saturday and
Sunday, went for a walk with a mate on Saturday before
it got dark, and visited my girlfriend 40 miles down the
road in Cambridge last night)
Ah - that's news, actually - our relationship is now
just over 2.5 weeks old, though I've known her for much
longer than that (about 7 months). And, of course, to
Americans the idea that 40 miles is a long way is ludicrous
(though, this morning, in the freezing fog, I met a traffic
jam, decided to go home a different way, and it took me
nearly two hours to make the journey). Anyway, more details
on this to those who are interested via email, I guess.
Pleased to see this list. I hope it all goes well - who
knows, maybe Nima can even share a list with me without
anything bad happening - and I see that Karen has added
yet another string to her bow. We do rely on her so much,
for this, moderating beliefnet, and running her other
list Unenrolled Baha'i.
Karen, are you *sure* you're not the head of the NOCAL
cabal, insinuating its spider-like tentacles (??) into
Baha'i Cyberspace the world over?
Paul
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
> in article c977f97b.04071...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
>
>
>>crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message
>>news:<23099-40...@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>...
>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd
>
> dated
>
>>>some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to
>
> carry on
>
>>>in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her
>
> walk
>
>>>back to London or some such thing.
>>
>>What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
>>life on here.
>
>
> Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul.
Dear pathetic liar,
Cal is mistaken. When you finally got around to checking _some_ facts,
like the fact that the message _was_ posted here, it seemed you could
not be bothered to see that Paul did not post it here. It was Nima who
posted it here, from Irfan9, Karen's email list.
<< 12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
<< Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
<< Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
<<
<<
<< --- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
<<
<< I mean,
<< > I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
<<
<< Hi!
<<
<< > and secret rituals involving
<< > ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
<< >
<<
<< Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
...
> You
> have discussed you romantic personal life (all 2-5 weeks of it) on
> TRB. here is your post. Long runs Paul the little fox until
> eventually he gets caught.
Caught lying in NI, yet again. Your name is Georgie Fleming, not Paul.
- Mr. Bad
> Baldrick
>
> 12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
> Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
> Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
>
>
> --- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
>
> I mean,
>
>>I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>>and secret rituals involving
>>ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
>>
>
>
> Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
(snip)
Steve Marshall
>>>What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
>>>life on here.
>>
>> Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul.
>
>Cal is mistaken. When you finally got around to checking _some_ facts,
>like the fact that the message _was_ posted here, it seemed you could
>not be bothered to see that Paul did not post it here. It was Nima who
>posted it here, from Irfan9, Karen's email list.
Would it be too much to ask for an apology to Paul for your error,
Baldrick?
cheers
Steve
Baldrick
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 14/7/04 1:22 am:
>
>
> Baldrick wrote:
>
>> in article c977f97b.04071...@posting.google.com, Paul
>> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
>>
>>
>>> crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message
>>> news:<23099-40...@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>...
>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd
>>
>> dated
>>
>>>> some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to
>>
>> carry on
>>
>>>> in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her
>>
>> walk
>>
>>>> back to London or some such thing.
>>>
>>> What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
>>> life on here.
>>
>>
>> Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul.
>
> Dear pathetic liar,
>
> Cal is mistaken. When you finally got around to checking _some_ facts,
> like the fact that the message _was_ posted here, it seemed you could
> not be bothered to see that Paul did not post it here. It was Nima who
> posted it here, from Irfan9, Karen's email list.
So what does it matter what group it came from? It ended up on TRB and
Cal was right all along about the girlfriend story.
Paul is very protective about his own personal life, but he sure as
hell loves to get his long nose involved in every one elses personal
life on TRB. he is nearaly as bad as You Capt Hawkeye and miss piggy
the biggest nosey parker that side of the atlantic ocean.
Baldrick
12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
--- In Irfan9@y..., Karen Bacquet <bacquet@t...> wrote:
I mean,
> I've got a video-watching cult, an archbishop,
Hi!
> and secret rituals involving
> ropes and ducks, but I don't lead a faction. :-)
>
Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
I was off having a life (I worked Friday, Saturday and
Sunday, went for a walk with a mate on Saturday before
it got dark, and visited my girlfriend 40 miles down the
road in Cambridge last night)
Ah - that's news, actually - our relationship is now
just over 2.5 weeks old, though I've known her for much
longer than that (about 7 months). And, of course, to
Americans the idea that 40 miles is a long way is ludicrous
(though, this morning, in the freezing fog, I met a traffic
jam, decided to go home a different way, and it took me
nearly two hours to make the journey). Anyway, more details
on this to those who are interested via email, I guess.
Pleased to see this list. I hope it all goes well - who
knows, maybe Nima can even share a list with me without
anything bad happening - and I see that Karen has added
yet another string to her bow. We do rely on her so much,
for this, moderating beliefnet, and running her other
list Unenrolled Baha'i.
Karen, are you *sure* you're not the head of the NOCAL
cabal, insinuating its spider-like tentacles (??) into
Baha'i Cyberspace the world over?
Paul
>
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random
Signatures" into your Preferences folder.
Cal E. Rollins
Sorry, I thought it was on TRB you talked about your girl friend. I do
recall saying to myself, "My only 2.5 weeks into a relationship and he's
driving 40 miles in the dead of fog to see her. Must be some hot
romance." How'd it progress? Will you be able to get both your
parents' approval for the wedding? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Never mind an apology, Baldrick. You've nothing to apologize for. I
just remembered seeing Paul's erstwhile love life on TRB but just
couldn't recall it came from Irfan. Shouldn't make any difference where
Paul published it; the effect is the same. I just know those English
men sure work fast. He reminded me of Heathcliff. If her name is
Greta, I'll faint or think he made up the whole story just to impress us
with his knowledge of Hollywood classics. --Cal
Steve Marshall
>Paul,
>
>Sorry, I thought it was on TRB you talked about your girl friend.
Good man, Cal. I don't know whether Paul will accept your apology, but
I think it's gracious of you to offer one.
> I do
>recall saying to myself, "My only 2.5 weeks into a relationship and he's
>driving 40 miles in the dead of fog to see her. Must be some hot
>romance." How'd it progress? Will you be able to get both your
>parents' approval for the wedding? --Cal
What part of Paul's statement, "I have never discussed my personal
life on here" do you not understand, Cal?
Baldrick
Rollins at crol...@webtv.net wrote on 14/7/04 6:46 am:
Cal
Ofcourse there is no apology needed. Our Kiwi TRB'er likes to remind
us he has sharpened finger nails & beware. And we all know how Holi
Kohli just loves playing TRB's administrator. He cant get the Army
Capt Hawkeye role worked out of his life yet poor poor fellow
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame79.html
Paul accused you Cal of making the whole story up which in itself was
a lie. Read what Paul says in his post.
Paul Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
> So, you just decided to make up this bullshit? Who will ever believe that a
> burk like you ever felt sorry for me while you were making up lies about me?"
> FU asshole! Paul
You are correct Cal, Just because Paul's post was originally sent
to Karens list instead of TRB is irrevelant. The story about his
girlfriend is true. And thanks to Nima's tenacity & research skills
it is now on TRB archives for future reference. Paul Hammond's very
rare but exciting romantic life may indeed be of great interest to
future researchers. Paul is just resentful you brought the story up
again.Cal. Yet Paul enjoys backbiting, cussing belittling, mixing
it, dishing out nasty Ad Hominem's and talking about others he loves
to dispise like yourself myself, Nima & Fred in the most derogatory
fashion on TRB.
But he never likes anyone talking about his personal life on TRB. Its
a pity he never took his grandfather's advice on how to behave in life
and he might still have that girlfriend on his arm today.
Wonder what happened in the Car on the road to Cambridge? Maybe he
disclosed his well kept Scarlet Pimpernel secret to her that the name
Paul Hammond was an alias given to him by the UK NSA, and she didnt
approve. History tells us many spies & moles give their secrerts away
in romantic affairs, even if they only last 3 to 5 weeks.
Baldrick
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.04071...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
>
> > crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message
> > news:<23099-40...@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>...
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd
> dated
> >> some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to
> carry on
> >> in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her
> walk
> >> back to London or some such thing.
> >
> > What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
> > life on here.
>
> Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul. You
> have discussed you romantic personal life (all 2-5 weeks of it) on
> TRB. here is your post. Long runs Paul the little fox until
> eventually he gets caught.
>
> Baldrick
>
Baldrick,
this is a post I made to Irfan 9, which Nima saw fit to forward
to trb after his mole on Irfan forwarded the list archive (all
3 days of it) to him.
I say again, I do not discuss my personal life amongst the
people here, many of whom I do not consider friends.
Now, if you look at this post from November 2002, it exposes
that Cal is telling lies about me anyway, because he said something
about my "having a rolls", meeting someone for sex in the
countryside, and making them "walk home to London".
If this is the message he got this from, then he should learn
how to read.
Besides which, I don't need crocodile tears from a lying
wanker like Cal, the originator of the "Paul is an AO
spy" rumour.
Paul
Baldrick
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 14/7/04 1:08 pm:
> I say again, I do not discuss my personal life amongst the
> people here, many of whom I do not consider friends.
If you dont want your personal life discussed, when are you going to
stop discussing and regurgitating other posters personal lives?
Baldrick
--
Paul Hammond
> >
> > What a load of bollocks! I have never discussed my personal
> > life on here.
>
> Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the lies Paul. You
> have discussed you romantic personal life (all 2-5 weeks of it) on
> TRB. here is your post. Long runs Paul the little fox until
> eventually he gets caught.
>
> Baldrick
Hmm.
You assert that this leak from Irfan is the source for Cal's
lying about me?
Well then, let us compare what I wrote ON IRFAN with Cal's scurrilous
assertions:
>
> 12 From: Paul Hammond <pahammond@o...>
> Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:40am
> Subject: Re: Thoughts from the keeper of popcorn
>
>
>
> Well, I see that much has happened during my absense, while
> I was off having a life (I worked Friday, Saturday and
> Sunday, went for a walk with a mate on Saturday before
> it got dark, and visited my girlfriend 40 miles down the
> road in Cambridge last night)
>
> Ah - that's news, actually - our relationship is now
> just over 2.5 weeks old, though I've known her for much
> longer than that (about 7 months). And, of course, to
> Americans the idea that 40 miles is a long way is ludicrous
> (though, this morning, in the freezing fog, I met a traffic
> jam, decided to go home a different way, and it took me
> nearly two hours to make the journey). Anyway, more details
> on this to those who are interested via email, I guess.
>
---
Now, Cal said:
"Didn't you write a while back on Zuhur that you wine and dine this girl
in the English countryside and drive her around in your Rolls? Well you
can't do that on pub salary even if you get great tips, so somebody from
the Mountain Top must be supplementing your income quite nicely."
No, I didn't write any such thing - and the substantial assertion,
that I must be being paid thousands of pounds by the Baha'i
AO because otherwise i couldn't afford to buy a Rolls Royce,
is made up from whole cloth out of Cal's imagination.
Then, when I told him so, he repeats his conviction that I
must be an AO spy, as follows:
"I wish we had a TRB archives, because I recall your stating you'd dated
some English girl (the only date you'd ever had) and trying to carry on
in the English countryside but it wound up with your making her walk
back to London or some such thing. I remember feeling sad for both of
you, your deprivation and her having to pay so dearly for exercising
good judgement. I admit that I just assumed the Administration paid you
enough for a Rolls Royce, since everybody in Israel, including the
Patestinian garderners, drive around in Mercedes, or so it seemed to me."
We do have a trb archive, and what it proves is that Cal is a
liar.
Note that he tries to excuse his central lie, that the AO pays
me enough to buy an expensive car, by trying to suggest that
it was reasonable of him to assume that I have a rolls, because
I obviously am a spy and that
"I just assumed the Administration paid you
enough for a Rolls Royce, since everybody in Israel, including the
Patestinian garderners, drive around in Mercedes, or so it seemed to me."
So, apparently, assuming that I am a spy and have a Rolls Royce
is "reasonable" according to Cal.
Cal knows very well that he is the originator of the lie about
me being an AO spy - he was the first person to suggest that
to Nima over on Zuhur while Nima was still well disposed to
me.
I have demanded an apology from him for this lie on several
occasions.
Now he repeats the lie, and when caught out, merely repeats
his lie again.
I think we can see exactly what kind of a shit-stirrer Cal
is here.
Baldrick, thanks for looking up the facts and contrasting them
with the lies originating from Cal's sick imagination.
Paul
Steve Marshall
>stop discussing and regurgitating other posters personal lives?
Can i make a practical suggestion, Baldrick. Provide a list of areas
within your private life, that you don't wish to have discussed here.
You may just find that Paul and others are willing to respect your
wishes.
cheers
Steve
Baldrick
at asm...@es.co.nz wrote on 14/7/04 2:47 pm:
Paul will respect my wishes, that will be the day. Steve, do me a
favour, stop playing mother goose on TRB and keep your auntie Ethel's
specialities for talisman9
Baldrick
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
It's about the question of whether he was or was not careless enough to
discuss his personal details on a public group where you might be
reading, and fill your hateful head with ideas of threatening someone at
their place of emplyment or at their home.
> It ended up on TRB and
> Cal was right all along about the girlfriend story.
>
In what way was Cal right?
The fact remains, you've lied yet again about Paul, and you have no
shame about it.
>
> Paul is very protective about his own personal life,
I very much doubt it, fleming arsehole. More likely he is simply being
prudent in an environment where people who've disagreed with you have
been threatened with libelous letters to local newspaper editors,
fleming petrol bombs in their windows, megaspam to their employers, and
bullet in their heads while they worked. Are you really so
patheticallyt witless to suppose that _NO_ONE_ could imagine why Paul
would not post various details of his private life here so that you
could hunt down and terrorize his girlfriend, intimidate his employers,
and smear his name with his family members? Do you really imagine that
your readers are not vaguely familiar with your tactics?????
> but he sure as
> hell loves to get his long nose involved in every one elses personal
> life on TRB.
You wretched liar. You've set new standards in intruding in other
people's real lives. You threatened Dermod's home with a fleming petrol
bomb; you wrote libelous letters about Nima to editors in Australia. I
bleive you've tried to do the same for me, but sent your leters to
Baltimore, instead. You spammed Susan's coworkers and threatened to
continue to carpet-spam her employers. Just about any one of these
would match everyone elses phone calls and any other involvment in other
people's personal lives.
> he is nearaly as bad as You Capt Hawkeye and miss piggy
> the biggest nosey parker that side of the atlantic ocean.
>
But for the actual instances of your death threats, libels, spammings,
etc. one fleming arsehole's opinion would be as good as another fleming
arsehole's opinion, right Cal?
(regurgi-intrusion, snipped)
- Mr. Bad
Mr. Bad Judgement
That is not the issue at all, here. There is a lie that Paul is working
for the AO. Cal had embellished it with some story of a Rolly Royce on a
Bartenders' salary, and it is all a lie. Saying that Paul discussed it
here, is more lie.
To now blame Paul for this thread, is just another pit of hypocrisy.
- Mr. Bad
Mr. Bad Judgement
Baldrick wrote:
(snip)
> Cal
>
> Ofcourse there is no apology needed.
Of course. You were lying yet again about Paul. If you apologized for
every time you lied about someone you don't like, this newsgroup might
be swamped with dozens of additional messages. Far better for the
readers to simply assume that whatever you've written about someone, is
simply a lie, unless they already know differently.
I say you were lying, since you clearly had written a lie about Paul.
Paul Hammond had written, "I have never discussed my personal life on
here," when this story of his girl friend re-appeared, and you plainly
lied about him, "Cal is telling the truth. Its you who is telling the
lies Paul", even copying in again, from the message that Nima (not Paul)
had first posted to TRB.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1637620646d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9b91a665.0407130755.5cd82ad2%40posting.google.com
> Our Kiwi TRB'er likes to remind
> us he has sharpened finger nails & beware.
Not to worry, no one will forget you are the king of the long lying
Pinocchio nose.
> And we all know how Holi
> Kohli just loves playing TRB's administrator.
Not to worry, no one will forget you are the epitome of hypocrisy.
> He cant get the Army
> Capt Hawkeye role worked out of his life yet poor poor fellow
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame79.html
Not to worry, no one will forget you were the swimsuit champion of the
Ganges Boys.
> Paul accused you Cal of making the whole story up which in itself was
> a lie. Read what Paul says in his post.
>
Paul said that he had not discussed his personal life on TRB. It is
true. He's seen what fleming arseholes some folks are, and how they've
terrorized people's family lives and day jobs, fleming arsehole.
> Paul Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
>
>
>>So, you just decided to make up this bullshit? Who will ever believe that a
>>burk like you ever felt sorry for me while you were making up lies about me?"
>
>
>>FU asshole! Paul
>
>
> You are correct Cal, Just because Paul's post was originally sent
> to Karens list instead of TRB is irrevelant.
It is simply a matter of fact of who brought this disccusion of Paul's
pesonal details into the public newsgroup, read around the world, from a
closed email list, perhaps with a no-forwarding policy?
> The story about his
> girlfriend is true.
Nor is that the point. People are particularly loath to discuss their
personal lives on this forum because you are particularly bitter and
petty after you've lost your point and gone on to try to ravage their
personal lives, fleming arsehole.
> And thanks to Nima's tenacity & research skills
> it is now on TRB archives for future reference.
Nima was one of the first people to see his personal life threatened
after you've lost your point here. You tried to libel him in the
Australian press, and even posted examples of your libel right here on
usenet, fleming arsehole.
> Paul Hammond's very
> rare but exciting romantic life may indeed be of great interest to
> future researchers.
Let's not forget your attempt to portray a Paul Hammond who swam out to
sailors. I don't suppose much imagination was required on your part,
beyond the name, fleming arsehole.
> Paul is just resentful you brought the story up
> again.Cal.
It is a useful reminder of how Nima has become as petty and spiteful and
intrusive as you, fleming arsehole.
> Yet Paul enjoys backbiting, cussing belittling, mixing
> it, dishing out nasty Ad Hominem's and talking about others he loves
> to dispise like yourself myself, Nima & Fred in the most derogatory
> fashion on TRB.
>
You seem hateful, George.
>
> But he never likes anyone talking about his personal life on TRB.
I'm sure he souldn't mind but for the presence of an obvious fleming
arsehole, like yourself who is libel to go over to his pub one night and
put a bullet in his head, OR, at least talk about it, fleming arsehole.
> Its
> a pity he never took his grandfather's advice on how to behave in life
> and he might still have that girlfriend on his arm today.
>
Let the non-fleming arsehole reader note the gratuitous entry of Paul's
family members, being drug into the disucussion by the fleming arsehole.
George, what is it with Paul's grandfather and you? Was he a Navy
Commander who you spilled gravy on decades ago?
>
> Wonder what happened in the Car on the road to Cambridge? Maybe he
> disclosed his well kept Scarlet Pimpernel secret to her that the name
> Paul Hammond was an alias given to him by the UK NSA, and she didnt
> approve. History tells us many spies & moles give their secrerts away
> in romantic affairs, even if they only last 3 to 5 weeks.
>
Tell your sponsor of your concerns and worries, I'm sure he'll be able
to help you out, fleming arsehole.
- Mr. Bad
Trueseeker
include I also intended to steal Pauls Rolls-Royse in your list below
.
Baldrick
in article 2lm2d0F...@uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad Judgement at
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 15/7/04 2:05 am:
> Baldrick wrote:
>
>> in article 2ljbi4F...@uni-berlin.de, Mr. Bad Judgement at
>> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 14/7/04 1:22 am:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Baldrick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> in article c977f97b.04071...@posting.google.com, Paul
>>>> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/7/04 2:03 pm:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
--
Trueseeker
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 15/7/04 2:09 am:
> Of course. You were lying yet again about Paul.
Nobody believes anything you write Kohli. On TRB Pat K is a joke.
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.
Paul Hammond
I don't do that, George.
But, will you tell your friend to stop lying about me?
Paul
Paul Hammond
Actually,
I'd be interested to know where the Rolls Royce fits in.
Cal?
(insert more lies here)
Paul Hammond
Err, no it isn't.
There was no Rolls Royce.
There was no sex in the countryside.
There was no "you made her walk back to London or something
like that".
There was no paycheque from the AO.
Did you miss the *difference* between what I wrote and Cal's
lies?
Fuck you too.
Paul
>
> But he never likes anyone talking about his personal life on TRB.
Learn to read, asswipe.
I said *I* never talk about it here.
Other people can make up whatever lies they like about me, it
doesn't change the facts.
Paul Hammond
> Steve, Baldrick,
>
> Never mind an apology, Baldrick. You've nothing to apologize for. I
> just remembered seeing Paul's erstwhile love life on TRB but just
> couldn't recall it came from Irfan.
And the story about the Rolls Royce, which came from your
sick imagination?
> He reminded me of Heathcliff.
No wuthering heights in Cambridgeshire.
If her name is
> Greta, I'll faint or think he made up the whole story just to impress us
> with his knowledge of Hollywood classics.
Erm, "Cathy" was the female lead in Wuthering Heights. ANd it wasn't
written in Hollywood.
--Cal
Freethought110
> History tells us many spies & moles give their secrerts away
> in romantic affairs, even if they only last 3 to 5 weeks.
ROTFLMAO :)) Classic!
Maybe I should send over one of my Russian Bayani devotees here - a
beautiful blonde Russki bombshell, which for the sake of convenience
I'll call Nadia - over palu's way in Cambridge. Only problem is I
think palu would not be seduced by her nubile Slavic charms but more
by her brother's - which for conveniences sake we'll call Boris ;-)
Dermod Ryder
"Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.04071...@posting.google.com...
> baldri...@yahoo.co.uk (Baldrick) wrote in message
>
> > History tells us many spies & moles give their secrerts away
> > in romantic affairs, even if they only last 3 to 5 weeks.
>
> ROTFLMAO :)) Classic!
>
> Maybe I should send over one of my Russian Bayani devotees here - a
> beautiful blonde Russki bombshell, which for the sake of convenience
> I'll call Nadia - over palu's way in Cambridge.
It wouldn't be this "Nadia" by any chance?
http://bigbrother.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/housemate_news.jsp?id=39
> Only problem is I
> think palu would not be seduced by her nubile Slavic charms but more
> by her brother's - which for conveniences sake we'll call Boris ;-)
You've tried them both? You're a real amphibian!
Dermod Ryder
"Trueseeker" <truth...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7489c33e.04071...@posting.google.com...
> Hey Holi Kohli, getting touchy are you poor fellow. You forgot to
> include I also intended to steal Pauls Rolls-Royse in your list below
> .
Go and buy a replacement Roller rather than stealing one! I think your
chauffeur's morals need checked!