SourceWatching Nemo?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

All Bad

unread,
Feb 13, 2009, 9:41:24 PM2/13/09
to
Years ago, some folks who knew Nima Hazini scratched their heads as
unlikeable Wahid Azal consumed the likeable Nima Hazini. I think that
spurred the "Finding Nima" discussion which mass-media reformatted into a
cartoon about a tropical fish.

Months ago Wahid Azal had troubles at Wikipedia and due to creative
differences, left Wikipedia as he has left so many of us, with wild
accusations. At one point, it seemed that he might have been disappointed
with the trajectory of his Wikipedia article (too much like Jeremiah
Starr's). Recently he was very proud of his contributions to SourceWatch,
but apparently Bad Bad bahoooveyeyeyeys effaced his web page and he needs a
new one. As an added complication Sourcwatch has rules against him editing
his own web page on Sourcewatch. The following is copied from SourceWatch

xxx Help Wahid Restore His Web Page xxxx
Groups/individuals posting articles on themselves
We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SW articles about
themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated, and we
encourage people to register under their own names when editing articles
already on SW about themselves or their groups. We also encourage people who
edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they
are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with
regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than
fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try
to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space
itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from
articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or
editing the site.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Ground_rules
xxxxxxxx He can't do it himself xxxxxxxxx

Here is how you can help Wahid get the Sourcewatch web page that he
deserves. Describe in this thread the propaganda techniques that you have
seen him use, and provide links to it, right here, on this thread. We might
not be able to get the actual page on Sourcewatch, maybe MIA1 might help,
but we can gather the facts for SourceWatch.

Did Wahid really spam your co-workers? Who, when, and how? What steps have
you taken as a result - do you avoid speaking out because you don't want a
repeat?

Has he attacked your family, belittled your loved ones who don't even call
him the liar that he is? Give up your links to his pus riddled pratings.

Has he accused you of being a Bad Bad bahooveyeyeyey, just because you, like
him, had an opinion on bahooooveyeyeyeyey?

Has he lied about you, in his campaign to tar you as a genocidal war
criminal?

How often has he repeated his lies about you? That Viv is Bill Garlington,
who is Bill Pleasant who is Mark Foster who is Paul who is dead?

Oh, of course, the Death Threats! Post your favorite death threats from him
against you, and others, here, with links.

Don't forget his current libels, like The Baha'i Liquor Centre, err,
residence in Baha'i Centre, and 'Abdu'l Baha, spying for the UK in the last
year of the Great War (ie while under British Occupation). Before these,
there were other lies and before them, other lies, typically just as patent
at these two. He is the guy who would even lie about his family of origin,
and, as Viv points out, admits that he has openly and proudly admitted he'll
say anything as long as it's against the Baha'is?

> Bottom line - Nima doesn't like Baha'is or their beliefs, he doesn't
> think they should be accorded the same rights as other people, and he
> will say anything to try to do them down. Sometimes he likes the IRI,
> sometimes he likes the Shah, sometimes he pretends to run with one
> crowd, sometimes with another, but this is the one constant.

There you go! You finally figured it all out. Congratulations.

DEATH TO BAHAISM!
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a976bb76cf143c99?hl=en

Be bold, be creative but factual. The article needs references, not just
accusations, as the professional propagandists do.

Thanks!
- All Bad

Death to Haifan Bahaism

unread,
Feb 13, 2009, 9:53:50 PM2/13/09
to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli

Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai and "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3.
He works for PMA-231 as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/
FORCEnet IPT of the Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he
worked at Saint Inigoes for 4.5 and developed a prototype next
generation flight data recorder, using COTS components, to meet
incident reporting, maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the
old PMA-282 which did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat
has an MS in computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [1]

"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet." [2]

Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs.


[edit]References
↑ [1] accessed February 3, 2009.
↑ [2] accessed February 3, 2009

Death to Haifan Bahaism

unread,
Feb 13, 2009, 10:14:02 PM2/13/09
to
On Feb 14, 12:41 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli

> Months ago Wahid Azal had troubles at Wikipedia

Seems I am not the only one.


http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien.

ANTI-WIKIPEDIA


Is Wikipedia a new fascism of knowledge perpetrated by disaffected
leftists: a Wackopedia?


The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia - against its
pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of
openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and
democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against its institutionalized
falsification of facts; against its sordid attempts to monopolize
knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective
memory and replacing them with imprimaturs. Yes, those are all
aspects
of the cyberbureaucratic fraud that Wikipedia is committing wholesale
upon knowledge. The fraud that consists of producing false knowledge
on an encyclopedic scale. Now, that's notable about Wikipedia, if
nothing else is.


The facts and events related in this document unfolded in the course
of an attempt to place in Wikipedia a factual and informative entry
on
the topic of Aetherometry. The unequal, rigged war which ensued
crystallized perfectly what is corrupt and perverse in the workings
of
the wikipedian enterprise, and the utter impossibility for such an
enterprise to produce anything even close to a factual and balanced
reference source.


The term "Wikipedia" is a neologism designed to sound as if it
denoted
an encyclopedia, a community project developing and functioning
through an effort of 'self-regulation'. That's what Wikipedia strives
to be, right? Wrong.


It is more like a Wackopedia of the 'pediaphiles' and perverts of
knowledge, the cyberpriests of infantilized knowledge. It suffices
to
read the falsifications committed in so many thousands of entries -
ranging from Friederich Nietzsche or Gilles Deleuze in philosophy, to
Black Holes or Autodynamics in physics, to Acupuncture or
Morphogenetic Fields (that are both classified as Pseudosciences!),
to
entries on Peer-Review, Politics, Medicine, etc - and one
immediately
realizes that one is dealing with an over-writing machine, a digital
abstract machine in charge of overcoding history and knowledge, but
doing it in the fashion of a modern mini-State or a mass-mediated
power mechanism: as a system of exchange of the simplest overwrites,
a
packaging of bullets of the most degraded information.


The reader will appreciate that we are not in favour of enshrined
encyclopedias that lay down monolithically official knowledge and
science - anymore that we can be in favour of a storehouse of
mediocrities and inanities whose content and classification varies
from hour to hour, like Wikipedia's. Robert McHenry, former Editor in
Chief of Encyclopedia Britannica was not far from the truth when he
wrote:


The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm
some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a
public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to
exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be
lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not
know
is who has used the facilities before him.


However, he failed to notice that, like in most public toilets these
days, the 'dirt' in Wikipedia is not a matter of chance but a matter
of system, it is there in principle, it is systemic and endemic. And
one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member
of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of
Ignorance.


It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and
culture for the masses. The unassailable mediocrity of the entries
is
the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party,
the
cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The NPOV is supposed to be
the result of the checks and balances of community participation in
the Wikipedia project. But that's baloney - since the community
effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go
by
the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the
"house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of
information to fit it into premade slots. It is more an axiomatic of
overcodes by voluntarily enslaved cyberbureaucrats, than a party-
police machine. Yet, it functions with a hardline reminescent of
fascism red or black, and deploys a thought-police filled with
policies and procedural guidelines, as these excerpts from Requests
for Adminship so well relate:


Jtkiefer has been a Wikipedian for about 2 months, but already has
1486 edits. He is active on RC Patrol, and could use a rollback
button
to help him. ABCD, 02:07, 27 July 2005


Kmccoy has been a Wikipedian since June 2004. (...) I believe he
ought
to have the delete button to finish the process. (...) Mindspillage
(spill yours?), 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


Madchester has 3,100 edits and has been here since January. He
reverts
vandalism a lot. Near 650 edits in the user talk and talk namespaces.
I feel he would benifit from admin powers. Howabout1, 22:37, July 23,
2005 (UTC)


(...) A rollback button would enhance the work of a great vandal
fighter. Canderson has been here for 5 months now, and according to
Kate's tool has 1678 edits, 1078 to articles, 34 to talk, the bulk of
the rest to User talk and Wikipedia namespaces. (...) Meelar, 16:29,
July 23, 2005 (UTC)


It's hilarious, pre-pubescent and bizarre, all at once. They have
standard questions that would-be Admins have to answer, like:


1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
(Please read the page about administrators and the administrators'
reading list.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you
feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it
and how will you deal with it in the future?


And answers like:


1. I would check the Recent Changes page for any signs of obvious
vandalism, and I would look at the Newpages for anything that could
be
speedied. I also might check the vandalism in progress page to keep
an
eye on anything.
3. Really the only thing I can remember is back when I first joined,
I
added a lot of box art to game articles and tagged them with the
{{pd}} tag, which caused a couple other contributors to get a little
upset (see my talk page), cause they had to go and re-tag them.


At the click of a button, these Administrators become empowered
barbarians in a campaign of mutilation of facts, thought and history;
cybervandals with a license to kill and a whole community of
bureaucrats to support them. One gets the sensation that one is
observing a strange electronic mix between Disneyland, maoist self-
confession, a computer game of political monopoly, and a police
recruitment questionnaire. RC patrol, war against vandals, keeping an
eye on anything...Wait, there is more, above the admins come the
actual 'bureaucrats' (sic):
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make
other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions
reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above,
but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship
is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to
engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. No
bureaucrats have been appointed since October 2004. The three
unsuccessful applicants since that time attracted comments about
their
experience and about there being little need for new bureaucrats.
Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the
prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before
nominating themselves. Bureaucrats are expected to determine
consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Yes, it is almost, almost like a revamped fascist party, a cybership
of bureaucratships muscling voters in electioneering campaigns and
seeking to refashion knowledge by a bureaucratic consensus abusively
represented as the majority consensus.


In a word, Wikipedia is the latest effort in the new leftist attempt
to consolidate representative knowledge for the masses. It
represents
the migration of the old left into the field of cyber-information.
Now
programmers get to play at cyber-revolutions...


A new bureaucracy, subliminal and purely electronic, almost
invisible,
now manages to perform all those cybertasks necessary for the
education of the masses and proper majoritarian representation with
the new cybertechnical tools. An invisible dictatorship by
administrators and annointed bureaucrats that have charted their plan
for the ulterior evolution of knowledge - a kind of mental police of
concepts and facts. It is the age of the publicitarian Left,
permeated
by a technobureaucratic vision of fake-democracy, self-policing and
pure representation. A kind of masturbatory electronic pork-barrel.


What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in
knowledge - or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and
adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an
officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation
and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of
administrators
and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and
exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies.
It is easy to see how a few - ignorant and stupid ones - can, in the
name of a 'democratic access to knowledge', establish the worst kind
of dictatorship: the fascism of the expression, the fascism of the
most mediocre and most ill-digested of commonplace notions. It is
easy to see, because, in fact, our most public institutions are now
subject to just that same kind of fascism - the diffuse fascism of
unquestioned majorities represented by groups of loudmouths
manipulated by bully boys.


Yes, Wikipedia is in the throes of a democratized, pervasive,
disseminated, molecular fascism. The precedence for just such a kind
of fascist attitude, for its rampant misinformation and
disinformation
and the collective sanction that it appears to garner is found in our
very own social organization. Likewise, this goes to answer the
question - 'what are the uses of such a falsified encyclopedia?'. The
uses are simple - the commercial value of 'perceived information',
irrespective of how false and falsified is the 'information' or its
'perception'.


How Wikipedia-fascism can be of use in the science and technology war


With a refreshing frankness , Joe Buff, in an article titled "Science
versus Science" published in Feb. 2004 atwww.military.com, raised a
series of basic issues that confront, at one and the same time, both
Big Science and the ongoing intelligence war in cyberspace with
respect to science and technology - two areas pertinent to the
present
exposé of Wikipedia and its cultural fascism. This merits a careful
going-over. Buff underlines how


Relative advantages in scientific and mathematical know-how have
helped determine the outcome of every major war for at least two
centuries - even for two-plus millennia.


We might say, it's far more than that, since the very history of
development of civil societies puts into evidence how scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of socio-economic
production was everywhere dependent upon the scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of military
destruction. Buff acknowledges that the development of science is
impelled by these forces, and


affects a nation's quality of life, economic vitality, and standing
on the world stage.


His focus, however, is as follows:


Yet American science is at war with itself. (...) The war is not
about
"junk science" or "pseudo science." It's being fought, if that's the
proper word, by highly credentialed and deeply respected academics
and
researchers. I believe the science war has resulted because of a
conflict between what science ideally should be, or ought to be, and
what in the real world science actually turns out to be. Part of the
scientific community, in fact, has jumped on the bandwagon of that
intramural blood sport, electioneering -- and thus serves
inadvertently as a test case and a learning tool for the military.
This is because scientists, by weighing in on partisan politics and
calling in doubt public policy, in my opinion have begun to undertake
heightened Knowledge Warfare. Knowledge Warfare is defined as the
broadest strategic level of manipulating how a populace thinks and
makes decisions -- it includes information warfare (using
cyberspace),
and psychological warfare (a classic stratagem).


He has almost entirely plunged his finger into the wound: Knowledge
Warfare - the broadest strategic manipulation of how a populace
thinks
and acts; employment of cyberspace and mass-media to control a mass-
society and fashion a consensus to be called "democratic". He places
the scientific community squarely at the focus of this Knowledge
Warfare; and at the heart of that focus, the dispute between Big
Science and small science, between the power-servant peer-review
institutions of Big Science and the facts of science or discovery:


Science is supposed to be founded on objectivity, solid proof, and a
spirit of open inquiry. The essence of this is called the Scientific
Method, whereby an hypothesis is stated, and then experiments are
performed to either validate or invalidate the hypothesis. A key part
of the Scientific Method is that those experiments have results which
are reproducible by independent laboratories. A crucial aspect of
advances in science is that papers summarizing the results of studies
be subjected to stringent peer review. The bottom line in peer review
is whether or not the experimental results are correct and support
the
conclusions stated in the paper. Alas, if only it were that simple.
(...) Many scientists are extremely conservative when it comes to new
ideas that could demolish the established order. Big Science, as it
has been called by commentators and journalists for years, is about
three things: funding, funding, and funding. Much of that funding
comes from the federal government. Consequently, science itself
represents a form of pork barrel. It has its vested interests, its
bitter rivalries, its successes and its failures, its insiders and
outsiders. (...) Science is the handmaiden and queen of the modern
battlefield.


This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Wikipedia, and
in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big
Science. For Wikipedia is at the intersection of this Knowledge
Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its
determination to brand bona fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as
Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that
would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a
gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho
bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an
always-
ready supply of zombified adolescents, Wikipedia has become a
supplement to the imaginary ‘peer-review system’ that supposedly
rules
the secretion called Official or Big Science. The unconscious
entente
of Wikipedia proves the collective adherence of its participants to
the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur
within
those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia),
the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of
the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not
worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control.


In a truly impoverished world there is a multiplication of the false;
utterances or systems that would qualify as scientific or
philosophical thoughts are few and rare. For these few, a new
dilemma
or double-bind arises: if they are not accepted by majorities, by the
effective organs of majorities, they cannot ever gain the recognition
of Big Science; and if they cannot gain that recognition, they are
not
eligible for public or private funds. They are, in a word, condemned
to a minor existence, at best, or no existence at all.


As part of a global strategy to control the thought, perceptions and
affections of populaces, there rise against these few efforts to
think
and research independently, the voices of the basest, with slogans
like - “if this work were scientific it would have gained recognition
by an institutional power, or been published in a peer-reviewed
mainstream journal”; “if it is so good it would already have been
commercialized”; "If it were science, it would not be ignored". These
are just some examples of the gravest and stupidest of the base
common-
senses that ‘human automata’ are now programmed to regularly emit -
and Wikipedia is replete with this mechanical exhibitionism of
ignorance, close-mindedness and willful stupidity. For it is
precisely this notion - the notion that nothing can be scientific
unless it has been officially sanctioned as science by institutional
powers - which bars pioneering efforts, particularly in basic
science,
from being taken seriously, from finding a source of worthy capital,
from any possibility of success. It is a notion that works as a self-
fulfilling prophecy, weeding out all that that threatens the
equilibrium of the supposedly 'known'. Hence, disinformation wins,
as
legitimate efforts and innovation are effectively strangled by
irrational and uninformed belief in that disinformation - a belief of
a religious allure, only its content is 'science' not religion. And
that's precisely why it is called Knowledge Warfare: because it is
disinformation and not knowledge or science that wins.


Perhaps the most grimly amusing part of all of this is that Wikipedia
does not even accurately enunciate Official Science. Rather, its
cyberpriests are poor sods who entertain themselves with splattering
over "dangerous" articles ready-made Stop and Caution signs, as if
they were curators of public morals, guard-dogs intent on protecting
the 'unknowing populace' from the horrors of scientific invalidity -
and this with respect to scientific claims and endeavors whose
content
they openly and proudly proclaim to be ignorant about! Wikipedia is
not an organ of Official Science; rather, Wikipedia is a volunteer
enforcer of the politics of that ‘science’, a rank manager, an organ
of an Officiating Science made up of norms that remind one more of
the
adolescent games of Alpha Beta Phi societies than anything resembling
the thought of science. In a word, Wikipedia has become an
officiating organ of scientific censorship and scientism. In that
mass-media role, it now stands as the rule (the norm) of the most
mediocre, an effective media dictatorship of falsified knowledge, and
thus an effective 'mediocracy'.


To us, this is the Jed Rothwell syndrome, the Serpent’s Tooth, all
over again - but on a larger and grander scale. A pervasive fascism,
the wikipedic fascism of pseudo-knowledge. A 'pediaphilia' of the
mind, often dictated by 10- and 14-year olds and written for them.
The
victory of infantilization as the best tool in the thought-control of
a mass. From the viewpoint of power-systems, Wikipedia is indeed very
useful. It keeps us all ignorant, but proud of it, all the happier
for
it.


Is Wikipedia's fascism and suppression of knowledge a fraudulent
intelligence operation?


In the beginning, one could have wondered where the 'spontaneous'
animosity towards Aetherometry came from. On closer scrutiny, the
animosity was found to be not simply aprioristic and uninformed, and
more intent on libeling scientists and their efforts than on creating
an encyclopedic article, but also part of a general fanaticism
displayed on all Wikipedia entries relating to new science and its
controversies. While this alone shows Wikipedia to be an
extraordinarily biased depository of so-called 'information', the
archives of modifications and the discussion pages which accompany
these entries record a shocking degree of zealotry and fanaticism
backed up by an administrative power that is systematically abused
through overt or covert deletion of texts expressing opposing views,
through alteration of records, caricatural distortion of content, and
the determined suppression of knowledgeable contributions.


One cannot but start to wonder - why is this animus so entrenched in
a
self-styled community project? Why do administrators abuse their
power and control the project, instead of acting as balanced
moderators? Why are they so wanton in their display of power and its
abuse, why do they behave towards potential contributors like a swat-
team towards rioters, why do they see fit to use war tactics and
cover
their tracks with tag teamwork, why are they so compulsively obsessed
with a competitive scoring of bureaucratic points?


The answer that slowly emerges is that it has to do with the
insidious, insinuating, small-time molecular fascism of Wikipedia. It
is, when all is said and done, a private concern masquerading as a
public service, with the pretension of revising the entirety of
historical facts and human knowledge (science included). In a word,
it is a major field for power systems to do battle in. But more than
that - and this is where it becomes ever more interesting - the
leaders of this neo-maoist cabal for the purification of knowledge
are
people like William M. Connolley, employee of the British government,
or Dr. Fred Salsbury, who has worked with the US Army Medical
Research
Institute at Fort Detrick, MD. Slowly, one begins to realize that
this
Wikipedia, and, at least its cabal in charge of science, is an
intelligence operation where at all hours (in their private or their
public life), these semi-government officials and semi-scientists,
with their numerous, mostly anonymous and frequently under-age
minions, engage in disinformation and open 'Knowledge Warfare'
against
their enemies. The attacks are aided and camouflaged by a mob of
almost exlusively anonymous administrators who 'lend a hand', and who
can be invoked ("there's thousands of us") and summoned to help 24
hours a day. In the gloating words of one of the most rabid ones:


This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at
anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The
Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to
submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap
about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer
review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in
full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly
leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far
too
polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've
been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been
given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us,
thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a
spade,
and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth
stroke), 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


This half-veiled 'moronic-intelligence' operation which is presented
as if it were a democratic undertaking, fair, square, and impartial
(NPOV, Wikipedia's ideological catchword), is, in fact, a systematic
operation of vilification and demonization of any knowledge,
scientific or otherwise, that is NOT orthodox by Wikipedia's
standards
- i.e. cannot boast a sufficient number of Google hits and/or a
record
of publication in mainstream journals that are regarded as flagships
of official science by a "consensus" of Wikipedia luminaries. It's a
gross and obscene spectacle, a joke that is being perpretated on the
public. And given the high Google ratings of this joke, it is also a
fraud, with serious consequences. For what other name can one give
to
passing information that is false and created for explicit and
exhibitionistic purposes of disinformation?

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 12:03:57 AM2/14/09
to
On Feb 14, 12:41 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

Do you honestly think the people at SourceWatch, or any other group
similarly acquainted with the techniques used by people like you, and
organizations like the Baha'is, will not see through your collection
of 'facts'? You obviously still don't understand (or are pretending
not to understand) the purpose and function of SourceWatch.

> DEATH TO BAHAISM!http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a976bb76cf14...

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 2:20:32 AM2/14/09
to
On Feb 14, 3:03 pm, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do you honestly think the  people at SourceWatch, or any other group
> similarly acquainted with the techniques used by people like you, and
> organizations like the Baha'is, will not see through your collection
> of 'facts'? You obviously still don't understand (or are pretending
> not to understand) the purpose and function of SourceWatch.

This is all about Pat Kohli's growing frustration at the fact that he
is presently check-mated on this one. KKKholi (appropriately
designated by Rod Wicks) understands the score very well. He is livid
because finally his hackery of the past ten plus years can be properly
contextualized beyond the Bahai wars and its specific actors and to
professional audiences well beyond the unhallowed halls of bahaim
cyber cult-land. They are also pissed off as hell because I am still
standing, still swinging, still as dangerous as ever to this cult and
its agenda, and still freshly loaded with ammunition to hurt them.
Had they had a leg to stand on, that article they started on me on
SourceWatch would still be there. That thing was so badly written and
so transparently libellous for libel's sake, that one of the chief
editors of SW took off from their busy schedule and pulled it down
himself after I informed him of its nature. While that article went
down within 3 days, Pat Kohli still remains a subject on SourceWatch.
They keep selectively quoting from SW's opening pages - on the very
same page where _selectivity_ is being instanced as a tool of
propaganda, I might add - forgetting to quote those relevant sections
where it details what kind of people are actually eligible. Let's let
them figure that one out for themselves, if they haven't already. But
suffice it to say that Pat Kohli is a perfect SW candidate whereas I
am not remotely eligible for inclusion.

Also note that while I have put up factual and verifiable information
neutrally phrased on SW, the crap they keep wanting to write about me
is all pure libel. Funny though, as soon as I put up the OZ NSA's
November 1997 letter to the Gold Coast LSA about me and then also
cited their second instance at public defamation of yours truly in the
December 2000 issue of the AUSTRALIAN BAHAI BULLETIN, that bahaim IT
committee (pseudo-)editor POQ-ed (pissed off quickly) right out of
there.

W

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli

PaulHammond

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 7:52:42 AM2/14/09
to


"Honest" is certainly not a word to be associated with your mate,
Nima.

But as his mate, who could possibly expect you to be objective?

Funny to hear telling the truth to a liar described as a "technique".

All Bad

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 8:18:01 AM2/14/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08989de3-cc74-4e49...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

MIA1: Do you honestly think the people at SourceWatch, or any other group


similarly acquainted with the techniques used by people like you, and
organizations like the Baha'is, will not see through your collection
of 'facts'? You obviously still don't understand (or are pretending
not to understand) the purpose and function of SourceWatch.

AB: We are referring to SourceWatch.org. There is another Sourcewatch as
well. It has a different purpose.

AB: SourceWatch.org is about exposing disinformation and the disseminators
of disinformation. Your ploy is to pretend that you are not a disseminator
when in fact you are. Did you think that you are the first liar to pretend
you are telling the truth. Stalin wrote a book accusing others of
propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Falsifiers_of_History

AB: You are a small but active part in the contamination of history with
propaganda. You falsely alleged that Pat Kohli had expertise in UAVs which
W. Azal blended with my vacation, and departure from this place for almost
two weeks, to accuse Pat Kohli, or me (I get confused) of being a war
criminal, just as Stalin would. SourceWatch.org is the place to expose the
lies and manipulation. However, like with democracy in Iraq, the best of
intentions do not make it so, and for now, SourceWatch.org is yet another
tool for propagandists, like W. Azal, and maybe you, too.

- All Bad

All Bad

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 8:35:41 AM2/14/09
to

"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bd899c1-150a-42e5...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 14, 3:03 pm, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do you honestly think the people at SourceWatch, or any other group
> similarly acquainted with the techniques used by people like you, and
> organizations like the Baha'is, will not see through your collection
> of 'facts'? You obviously still don't understand (or are pretending
> not to understand) the purpose and function of SourceWatch.

WA: This is all about Pat Kohli's growing frustration at the fact that he


is presently check-mated on this one. KKKholi (appropriately
designated by Rod Wicks) understands the score very well. He is livid
because finally his hackery of the past ten plus years can be properly
contextualized beyond the Bahai wars and its specific actors and to
professional audiences well beyond the unhallowed halls of bahaim
cyber cult-land. They are also pissed off as hell because I am still
standing, still swinging, still as dangerous as ever to this cult and
its agenda, and still freshly loaded with ammunition to hurt them.
Had they had a leg to stand on, that article they started on me on
SourceWatch would still be there. That thing was so badly written and
so transparently libellous for libel's sake, that one of the chief
editors of SW took off from their busy schedule and pulled it down
himself after I informed him of its nature. While that article went
down within 3 days, Pat Kohli still remains a subject on SourceWatch.
They keep selectively quoting from SW's opening pages - on the very
same page where _selectivity_ is being instanced as a tool of
propaganda, I might add - forgetting to quote those relevant sections
where it details what kind of people are actually eligible. Let's let
them figure that one out for themselves, if they haven't already. But
suffice it to say that Pat Kohli is a perfect SW candidate whereas I
am not remotely eligible for inclusion.

AB: I am mystified about your article on Pat Kohli. I did look at it. It
is rather obviously atrociously written, until you dissect it to see that
you wrote a phrase at the beginning, and maybe a sentence or two at the end,
and then just concatenated a multi-sentence quotation to your first phrase,
to make your first paragraph, mostly about Navy work, but the Baha'i
connection mentioned in the opening phrase. The second paragraph is another
quotation, about the same Navy work! If you wrote it, it would be like your
posting, substantially the same thing over and over again! You don't have
cases of him disinforming people as you do.

WA: Also note that while I have put up factual and verifiable information


neutrally phrased on SW, the crap they keep wanting to write about me
is all pure libel. Funny though, as soon as I put up the OZ NSA's
November 1997 letter to the Gold Coast LSA about me and then also
cited their second instance at public defamation of yours truly in the
December 2000 issue of the AUSTRALIAN BAHAI BULLETIN, that bahaim IT
committee (pseudo-)editor POQ-ed (pissed off quickly) right out of
there.

AB: Who is the "they" who are wanting to write crap about you? Are
referring to the thread I started as a data marshalling point for your
SourceWatch web page? If so, the "they" would be "just me". What is the
crap they want to write about? I thought I was clear about sticking to the
facts.

- All Bad


maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 9:35:16 PM2/14/09
to
On Feb 14, 11:18 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

No lies on


>
> AB: You are a small but active part in the contamination of history with
> propaganda.  You falsely alleged that Pat Kohli had expertise in UAVs which
> W. Azal blended with my vacation, and departure from this place for almost
> two weeks, to accuse Pat Kohli, or me (I get confused) of being a war
> criminal, just as Stalin would.  SourceWatch.org is the place to expose the
> lies and manipulation.  However, like with democracy in Iraq, the best of
> intentions do not make it so, and for now, SourceWatch.org is yet another
> tool for propagandists, like W. Azal, and maybe you, too.
>
> - All Bad
>

Ahhh....so here comes the discrediting Sourcewatch move! Yes, let's
see if that'll work.

All Bad

unread,
Feb 14, 2009, 10:45:48 PM2/14/09
to
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d635c42-6c53-4d9e...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 14, 11:18 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
(snip)

>
> AB: You are a small but active part in the contamination of history with
> propaganda. You falsely alleged that Pat Kohli had expertise in UAVs which
> W. Azal blended with my vacation, and departure from this place for almost
> two weeks, to accuse Pat Kohli, or me (I get confused) of being a war
> criminal, just as Stalin would. SourceWatch.org is the place to expose the
> lies and manipulation. However, like with democracy in Iraq, the best of
> intentions do not make it so, and for now, SourceWatch.org is yet another
> tool for propagandists, like W. Azal, and maybe you, too.
>
> - All Bad
>
MIA1: Ahhh....so here comes the discrediting Sourcewatch move! Yes, let's

see if that'll work.

AB: It is what it is. If they host propagandists doing their propaganda,
then that is what they are doing. Wahid Azal is a propagandist. He might
have even been reported to Sourcewatch.org as one, and as far as I can see,
he wants to use them to support his propaganda campaign. I don't need, nor
desire to discredit Sourcewatch.org; that is what Wahid Azal does when he
uses it as part of his campaign.

AB: WA used to claim to be the Manifestation of God:

"The Point Himself, the Lord Most High, the Bab, came to me in several very
lucid
dreams over the past two months and bestowed upon me the mantle as the new
Manifestation of God for the age and the one spoken of in the Bayan as 'Him
whom God shall Manifest'. It was not Mirza Husayn `Ali Nuri who was the
Promised One of the Bayan because "by their fruits ye shall know them," and
after 110 years since his passing (significant number since it is the
numerical value of the name `Ali, which means the All High, and is also the
second part of my Sufi name, Wahdat _Ali_, the unity of the all high, given
to me in 1998, which btw has seven letters in Arabic, just as the name Ali
Muhammad) the Baha'i religion has amounted to nothing other than a silly and
irrelevant Amway cult with prayer, factionalized, conflict ridden and a
black hole of pure negativity, pain, fear, angst and retrogression to its
adherents, whose only accomplishment and claim to fame are a bunch of
costly, ostentatious marble buildings in Haifa, Israel only benefitting the
Israeli tourism industry and its benefactors (and nothing more); a religion
whose leaders are knee deep involved in the criminal underworld, with
foreign intelligence agencies and rightwing political forces (i.e. Muhammad
Reza Pahlavi, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pauline Hanson, the Israeli
government, Phillip Ruddock, Reza Pahlavi, etc) whose details will make your
head spin."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/8b9e971a947e88df

AB: Yeah, trying to read the second sentence outloud could cause your head
to spin. Now he describes himself as inconsequential.

"Pat Kohli is a perfect SW candidate whereas I
am not remotely eligible for inclusion."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/24c6d106f3bb445f

AB: He says whatever seems convenient at the time w/ no expectation it
could possibly consistent. If he really were the Manifestation of God for
the age, as he said, he would be the Source, period. He lies.

- All Bad


PaulHammond

unread,
Feb 15, 2009, 8:02:46 PM2/15/09
to

maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

What, more innuendo with no beef? Colour me surprised!

"Describe everything as a "move"" and people might think there's
something behind those empty eyes!

About as convincing as "Smile more - it makes people wonder what
you're up to"

The discrediting here was aimed at you personally, I believe.

But "Whatever" - it's all you got, right?

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 15, 2009, 10:38:47 PM2/15/09
to
On Feb 16, 11:02 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 15, 2009, 11:15:29 PM2/15/09
to
On Feb 15, 1:45 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

> AB:  WA used to claim to be the Manifestation of God:

And still IS ;-)


-

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 15, 2009, 11:23:37 PM2/15/09
to
On Feb 14, 11:35 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

> AB:  Who is the "they" who are wanting to write crap about you?  Are


> referring to the thread I started as a data marshalling point for your
> SourceWatch web page?

Your marshalling points were, as usual, pure bullshit bahaim
propaganda, selectively culled.

> If so, the "they" would be "just me".

So you are Owen, are you, eh?

> What is the
> crap they want to write about?  I thought I was clear about sticking to the
> facts.

What facts were those asshole? What points to this article below do
you specifically dispute. Have at it again, fink. WHAT POINTS IN THE
ARTICLE BELOW ARE NOT FACTUAL. Spell it out. Detail it.

-


[edit]References

-

You gutless pieces of cultist, demonic turd allow yourselves every
form of below the belt attack and libel against people. When the shoe
is put on the other foot and people factually and truthfully expose
without any embellishment what you are and the agencies you work for,
you cry foul. Tough shit, sherlock! With or without SW, the points of
that article are unassailable fact whereas the one you started about
me was total, libellous crap and misdirected propaganda.

W


Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 17, 2009, 3:07:01 AM2/17/09
to
On Feb 14, 10:52 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> "Honest" is certainly not a word to be associated with your mate,
> Nima.

Paul Hammond likes to shamelessly project because he has no other
genuine line of defense, especially as he has been caught lying more
times and on more occasions than anyone before or since. It is also
the oldest tactic of these apparatchicks to attribute their own core
dishonesty and sleaze to anyone who dissents against their masters.
But bar none, their is no bigger liar I have come across than this
obnoxious, demonic troll.

PaulHammond

unread,
Feb 17, 2009, 8:58:06 AM2/17/09
to
On 17 Feb, 08:07, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:52 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Honest" is certainly not a word to be associated with your mate,
> > Nima.
>
> Paul Hammond likes to shamelessly project because he has no other
> genuine line of defense,

I know you're a liar, because you've told lies about me. Time after
time.

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 17, 2009, 9:10:49 PM2/17/09
to
On Feb 17, 11:58 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> I know you're a liar,

You know nothing beyond what you are scripted to know. As you yourself
have admitted, "you don't get it"!

PaulHammond

unread,
Feb 18, 2009, 11:12:34 AM2/18/09
to
On 18 Feb, 02:10, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:58 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > I know you're a liar,
>
> You know nothing beyond what you are scripted to know. As you yourself
> have admitted, "you don't get it"!
>

You're right. I admitted that I didn't understand the relevance of a
link you provided to the history of edits page of a particular
sourcewatch article.

Maybe you should learn how to write more coherently?

However, I do still know that you have told lies about me. For
instance - I am not Baha'i, and never have been. You have said
otherwise.

You have also said that I am paid by some kind of Baha'i "black ops"
organisation to come here and post in opposition to your views. I
know that, too, to be simply your fantasy about me.

So, I DO know that you are a liar, however many times you want to
reproduce a quote from a private email someone sent you 5 years ago,
who you now also despise and who doesn't hold those views any more.

All Bad

unread,
Feb 18, 2009, 8:25:01 PM2/18/09
to

"Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191e15e-d647-4ebb...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1aadf96c946c5de9


Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 18, 2009, 10:13:59 PM2/18/09
to
On Feb 19, 11:25 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli

Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith


[edit]References


↑ [1] accessed February 3, 2009.
↑ [2] accessed February 3, 2009


Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military

Ruhaniya

unread,
Feb 18, 2009, 10:15:11 PM2/18/09
to
On Feb 19, 2:12 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> You're right.  

Indeed.

<bs snip>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages