Whackopedia: Brazilian Waxing ok/Greatest Name article not (what you are contributing to)
Sock-Puppet'ullah
PaulHammond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mysticism
currently redirects to the artcle about Sufism - but surely, there
must be people in the world than can write a more broadly based
article about Islamic mysticism?
PaulHammond
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_wax
Well - Bikini Wax is a real thing.
your continual sock-puppets and personal campaigns against Mike
Russell made people suspicious that there was another agenda behind
the greatest name article, your behaviour when that article was
referred for others opinions tended to confirm that suspicion.
If someone less suspicious than you (or preferably several different
someones) wrote, say, an article about Islamic mysticism that made
references to the importance of the concept of "Names of God" and "The
Greatest Name", I'm sure such an article would stand.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> On 25 Oct, 02:53, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_wax
>
> Well - Bikini Wax is a real thing.
>
> your continual sock-puppets and personal campaigns against Mike
> Russell
When dealing with cabals of Fascists such as Mike Russell who have no
standard of fair play, you fight by any means necessary.
>made people suspicious that there was another agenda behind
> the greatest name article,
What a load of misdirecting shite!
>your behaviour when that article was
> referred for others opinions tended to confirm that suspicion.
WTF is that supposed to mean? The pattern of the Bahaim IT committee
on wikipedia in either stamping out or obfuscating whenever it doesn't
meet the standard-line is etched all over the place. Besides you and
Dermod informed that cunt that the article was mine to begin with,
telegraphing your punch right here. He went and first gutted the
article of all content and then nominated it for deletion, in case you
forgot. So if anyone's "behavior" is at issue, it your redneck cultist
engineer friend in Cleveland, OHIO.
> If someone less suspicious than you
And why would my writing about "Islamic mysticism" be suspicious, pray
tell?
>(or preferably several different
> someones) wrote, say, an article about Islamic mysticism that made
> references to the importance of the concept of "Names of God" and "The
> Greatest Name", I'm sure such an article would stand.
I doubt they would, especially since whackopedia's agenda is not
remotely about accurate scholarship or much of anything else for that
matter other than to lend soap-boxes for know-nothing idiots or
manufactured corporate half-truths. If it was, an entry for Bahai
faith never exist under an article about the Maitreya figure in
Buddhism. You BAHAIM have been using that place for your own
propaganda purposes since it went up.
W
PaulHammond
wrote:
> On Oct 28, 1:39 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct, 02:53, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_wax
>
> > Well - Bikini Wax is a real thing.
>
> > your continual sock-puppets and personal campaigns against Mike
> > Russell
>
> When dealing with cabals of Fascists such as Mike Russell who have no
> standard of fair play, you fight by any means necessary.
>
Well, if ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE OR THE INTERNET, then you can hardly
complain if people use the same techiniques back to you, now can you?
> >made people suspicious that there was another agenda behind
> > the greatest name article,
>
> What a load of misdirecting shite!
>
> >your behaviour when that article was
> > referred for others opinions tended to confirm that suspicion.
>
> WTF is that supposed to mean? The pattern of the Bahaim IT committee
> on wikipedia in either stamping out or obfuscating whenever it doesn't
> meet the standard-line is etched all over the place.
You have produced zip, zero, nada evidence of this so-called "Baha'im
IT committee" you're always burbling on about.
Why should anyone else share your delusions?
>Besides you and
> Dermod informed that cunt that the article was mine to begin with,
The pulling of the God's Greatest Name article had fuck all to do with
me!
After you created about 500 Wikipedia sock-puppets to try to continue
to abuse Mike on the Juan Cole talk page, it seems he was motivated to
try to root out ALL of your sockpuppets, and therefore also came
across the ones that started the God's Greatest Name article too.
It's the Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Chickens Coming Home to
Roost)
If you play silly buggers with sock-puppets AND make a big noise about
it by advertising your campaign elsewhere on the internet, surely you
WANT people to pay attention to you.
It's no good whining when that attention isn't quite the kind you
want!
> telegraphing your punch right here. He went and first gutted the
> article of all content and then nominated it for deletion, in case you
> forgot. So if anyone's "behavior" is at issue, it your redneck cultist
> engineer friend in Cleveland, OHIO.
>
> > If someone less suspicious than you
>
> And why would my writing about "Islamic mysticism" be suspicious, pray
> tell?
>
See above - creating countless sock-puppets in order to keep shouting
"Mike Russell is the Head of the Baha'i Wikipedia Distortion
Committee"
Making noise makes people pay attention to the other things you've
done.
I did try to explain these facts of life to you in some detail the
last time you were on a "Wikipedia is shit because it won't say what
*I* want" kick.
It's not my fault you were too dumb to pay attention then, is it?
> >(or preferably several different
> > someones) wrote, say, an article about Islamic mysticism that made
> > references to the importance of the concept of "Names of God" and "The
> > Greatest Name", I'm sure such an article would stand.
>
> I doubt they would, especially since whackopedia's agenda is not
> remotely about accurate scholarship or much of anything else for that
> matter other than to lend soap-boxes for know-nothing idiots or
> manufactured corporate half-truths. If it was, an entry for Bahai
> faith never exist under an article about the Maitreya figure in
> Buddhism. You BAHAIM have been using that place for your own
> propaganda purposes since it went up.
>
Wise up, Nima. I'm not a Baha'im, nor a Baha'i.
Anyway - I've asked this question before. If you're so convinced as
you say you that the Wikipedia is shit, what do YOU care what it
actually says?
Just carry on telling everyone it's shit, and we'll carry on ignoring
you and making up our own minds which is the more valuable information
resourse.
Paul
> W
Finnegan's Wake
"Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deatht...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d275091-e11e-4ee0...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> WTF is that supposed to mean? The pattern of the Bahaim IT committee
> on wikipedia in either stamping out or obfuscating whenever it doesn't
> meet the standard-line is etched all over the place. Besides you and
> Dermod informed that cunt that the article was mine to begin with,
> telegraphing your punch right here. He went and first gutted the
> article of all content and then nominated it for deletion, in case you
> forgot. So if anyone's "behavior" is at issue, it your redneck cultist
> engineer friend in Cleveland, OHIO.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia; contribute nothing to it by
way of articles, comment or anything else. I do refer to it from time to
time and find it to be a fruitful source of information, that, if not
entirely accurate to my mind is, at least, honest and transparent.
Consequently, I have made no comments about or laid information about you or
other Wikipedia contributors to any person. Indeed the first I knew that you
were trying to get an article about yourself onto that organ was the
discussion that arose here about it.
I would suggest that you withdraw that accusation against me on the grounds
that it is entirely inaccurate.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> Well, if ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE OR THE INTERNET, then you can hardly
> complain if people use the same techiniques back to you, now can you?
Who says I am complaining.
> You have produced zip, zero, nada evidence of this so-called "Baha'im
> IT committee" you're always burbling on about.
I have produced more evidence of it - as have others - than you are
allowed to admit publically, indeed.
> Why should anyone else share your delusions?
Simply because quite a lot of people (including Will Johnson) share my
perspective in the manner in which you Fascists manipulate information
and contributions all over whackopedia. Remember this from Juan Cole's
discussion page, which Mike Russell keeps blanking out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Cole
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Cole&action=history
Baha'i studies out of balance
An anonymous editor has doubled discussion on this from the article's
previous incarnation. Clearly, lists and summaries of articles are not
encyclopedic.
In is academic capacity, he's written one book on Baha'i, two books on
Egypt, three (at least) monographs on Shi'h, and added significantly
to the corpus of Gibran available in English. Yet this section is
about twice as much Baha'i as his other academic interests' coverage
combined. WP:Undue weight anyone?
Lastly, outside of his own published work on his charges of
"fundamentalism", that is a thread that has not gained any traction
from other researchers. Talisman was titillating to the dozen or so
participants who agreed with him, but outside of Panopticon it was
never covered by indepedent sources. WP:Undue weight again.
Objections to culling back to the previous edition? MARussellPESE
(talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree; there were some valuable additions by the anon but there
was way too much focus on Bahai; the academic work section has become
completely Bahai-centric and the anon deleted a lot of information
about Cole's much more well-known work. But I think some of the other
changes could be kept rather than simply reverting back -- perhaps
start with reverting just the academic section and then delete a bunch
of the bahai stuff.... I guess there are a lot of edits to wade
through that way though....csloat (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's me. I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, Cole's background
in the Baha'i religion, and the academic field of Baha'i Studies, does
in fact explain much of his current worldview, including his writings
on non-Baha'i subjects such as politics. (Those familiar with the
Baha'i will see this easily.) On the other hand, yes--you're right, as
it stands, the description is lopsided and needs to be fixed. (By
adding, subtracting, or rearranging? Difficult question.)
Defintitely more coverage should be given to (say) his writings on
Egypt and mainstream Shi'ism, and I hope somebody can do that. I don't
have access to any of these books. Also, the anti-colonialism strain
in Cole's writing is not really a Baha'i theme (though Cole might
argue the opposite) but probably comes either from his academic
training, or from living in the Middle East. Since most of his books
and articles pick up on that--including, I expect, Napoleon's Egypt
(his latest), that should be expanded. Perhaps someone more familiar
with this subject can identify what authors Cole is influenced by on
this point.
Some historical perspective: Cole became a Baha'i, then as a result of
that, decided to travel in the Middle East and become an academic.
Since "Baha'i Studies" is considered kind of marginal for academic
job-
hunting purposes, and since Baha'i history can't be understood without
Shi'a Islam anyway, he branched out early on. (He was writing on
Shi'ism and anti-colonialism basically all the way back, concurrently
with his Baha'i stuff.) Since Modernity and the Millennium he has
avoided writing on Baha'i topics, and as you know, got famous through
his blog.
Why is it important to emphasize Cole's Baha'i orientation? For one
thing, it explains why he is so dead-set against most separatist
movements (except possibly Kashmir, because of the UN thing) and in
favor of multi-national states. (He also sees strong states as
necessary for defense against imperialism.) It also explains much of
his perspective on U.S. intervention in Iraq--a form of unilateral
invasion which the Baha'i writings specifically condemn. People who
aren't aware of this aspect, tend to misjudge him--as when he got
accused of anti-Semitism, for example. (A key Baha'i principle is the
unity of all races and religions.) And no, I'm not a Baha'i myself.
I'll sit back for awhile and let other people play in the sandbox. But
I'll check back and answer questions if you want. Good luck! --Dawud
PS. The "list and summaries of articles" is kind of important--to
people interested in Cole in his capacity as a Baha'i academic, a
field in which he's had an enormous impact. In general, I would say
that the article needs much, much more description of individual
writings of Cole's, rather than less. Incidentally, Cole himself said
something like this on his blog once, not sure how to find it though.
I.e., that at a minimum, an article like this should contain
descriptions of his major writings.
I also agree with the poster who said the Cole / Hitchins clash gets
too much coverage. Actually there were several online teapot-tempests
sort of like that. One was over slain journalist Vincent Stephens (is
that right?) who Cole said was shot for having an affair with an Iraqi
woman, and then his widow posted...and well, it's complicated. Another
issue was over the book "The Israel Lobby," and the related issue of
Jewish pressure on universities to cancel various lectures. Maybe all
of these could be in the "controversies" section? Or the first could
go under "Iran."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.56 (talk) 04:11, 29
November 2007 (UTC)
The real reason Cole merits such an extensive BLP is his presence
as a Middle East commentator. His academic work wouldn't warrant such
an extensive article, and his Baha'i work occupies a shrinking corner
of his work.
However, assuming that he has a "Baha'i orientation" clearly
misrepresents that religion's teachings. His outlook is much more in
sync with that of liberal American academics, and his point of view is
much more Jeffersonian than Baha'u'llah. True, Baha'i got him on this
path, but he stepped away from Baha'i years ago — if he ever really
understood it in the first place and wasn't cherry-picking beliefs.
There are parallels between his views and Baha'i, but he has an anti-
authoritarian streak that cuts deeply against the grain of Baha'i.
His strident politics, polarizing rhetoric, and withering
criticisms are antithetical to Baha'i. Baha'is are to:
* "shun politics like the plague" (Shoghi Effendi)
* "The attitude of the Bahá'ís must be twofold, complete
obedience to the government of their country they reside in, and no
interference, whatsoever in political matters or questions." (Shoghi
Effendi)
* I admonish you to observe courtesy, for above all else it is
the prince of virtues. … This is a binding command which hath streamed
forth from the Pen of the Most Great Name." (Baha'u'llah)
"Informed Comment", while often proving to be better informed than
Fox news pundits, and sometimes even constructive, nevertheless in
tone, tact, and subject is so far removed from Baha'i as to make
comparisons between the two more ironic than informative. WP isn't the
place for irony.
Lists and summaries of articles is not encyclopedic. That's what
external links are for. In this case he maintains an extensive online
library of his papers. WP isn't really the place to reproduce that.
Summarizing his papers critical of Baha'i "fundamentalists" from a
period prior to opening his blog only seems to demonstrate that he's
prepared to turn a poison pen on whatever authority figure has his
attention. (I pity his department chair and dean.) However, making
that point would be OR and inappropriate. Otherwise, I don't see the
point of these. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
MARussellPESE, are you a Baha'i? If so, that would explain your
hostility. Your venom is characteristic of the attitude active Baha'is
often have for those who leave their faith, criticize it, or conceive
of their Baha'i identity in a different way (as Cole does).
By any objective standard, Cole is one of the leading authorities on
the Baha'i religion, and a crucial figure in the field of Baha'i
Studies (even though he is no longer active in it). A discussion of
his writings on the Baha'i religion is hardly out of place here (and
only space considerations would prevent them from appearing in a
mainstream encyclopedia). While his current Middle Eastern commentary
is admittedly more important, there is no reason why this would
prevent us from giving substantial attention to other fields,
especially since this was the matrix (so to speak) from which his
other interests sprang.
You are right in pointing out that Baha'ism is only one of several
equally important influences on his thinking, Jefferson being another.
--Dawud
Dawud: Assume good faith. Trying to impeach your interlocutor's
arguments becaus of their beliefs is argumentum ad hominem, and a
personal attackcontrary to Wikipedia policies.
Cole's problems with Baha'i are well documented. What I've done is
raise fair observations of them. I've neither attacked his character
nor yours.
It's a cheap shot, and uninformed, to accuse me of having an
"attitude" about ex-Baha'is. Personally, I'd rather people with
unresolvable problems with any belief system have the intellectual
integrity to dissociate themselves from them. That's exactly what Cole
did in '96.
Accusing me of personal animosity towards Cole because of my
religion is also a cheap shot. I think that the Global Americana
Institute is a stroke of genius and long, long overdue. His sympathy
for Jeffersonian priciples will make him an excellent translator. (I
wonder if they'll be translating The Federalist Papers at some point.)
Ignorance of the Islamic world in the West is matched easily by
ignorance of the Western world in the Islamic. Those sitting in the
interstices between these have a unique opportunity to bridge that
gap. My disappointment with Cole is that he often cripples himself
with his poison pen.
You've raised two arguments:
1. Cole's positions on Middle Eastern politice are rooted in/
informed by Baha'i principles.
2. Discussion at length of his works on Baha'i are relevant/
encyclopedic.
I've countered both.
First, emboiling oneself, and even his approach to political
disourse, is antithetical to Baha'i. For those unfamiliar with that
religion, specifically identifying what those are here is not a
personal attack but thorough discussion; as well as directly on point
to the assertion that Baha'i influences Cole.
Further, If you're familiar with Modernity, he actually argues
that the influence went the other way. His thesis being that
Baha'u'llah's thiking was influenced by liberal Western principles
that were being discussed widely in the intellectual circles of
Baghdad during his sojourn there. So, according to Cole, the liberal
currents in Baha'i have their germ in the Enlightenment, not
"Revelation". So how could Cole be citing/relying upon Baha'i
principles when he, himself, identifies those as Western at their
source?
Second, summaries of his papers on Baha'i mysticism,
administration, Talisman, and "fundamentalism" don't inform his
positions on current affairs in the Middle East. As such they are
awfully close to trivia.
His academic work, by itself, wouldn't merit an article of this
length. The article itself states that he was obscure outside of his
field until "Informed Comment" got rolling. Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami
are scholars of even wider academic repute (Ajami is far more
influential as well), but whose articles are both about half as long.
The bulk of those are also on their controversial positions. Nikki
Keddie, another leading scholar in the field but who's kept her head
down politically, has a stub for an article despite her publications
being comparable to Cole. I'm using those as examples. You need to
make the case that this is relevant. Merely stating that they are
isn't an argument: it's argumentum ad repetitionem (argument by
repetition). MARussellPESE 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I assumed good faith in the beginning. Experience has led me to doubt
it. Wikipedia policy simply does not deal very well with groups like
the Baha'is, who make PR-motivated edits of obscure subjects that
otherwise tend to go unmonitored. Hence the need to "name and shame."
Cole is a different kind of Baha'i than you--and moreover, a kind whom
your religion has taught you to regard as a perversion of the true
Baha'i teachings. It is not a "cheap shot" to point this out. You
yourself have attacked him on this basis.
Yes, Cole says that Baha'u'llah was influenced by various then-
contemporary political and intellectual currents.[citation needed]
However, Cole's entry to Middle Eastern subjects came via Baha'i
Studies, and then he branched out from there. That's what I meant.
Cole's "poison pen" is an interesting question. I tended to avoid his
more barbed comments while summarizing his Middle Eastern views, but
perhaps that was unfair of me. I would not object to including a
sampling of such comments to illustrate his style.
His academic work, whether in Baha'i Studies or elsewhere, is hardly
trivia. Trivia, by definition, is unimportant. (For Finagle's sake,
Wikipedia has an article devoted to every one of the Pokemon
creatures. How is this trivia, and not that?) Baha'i Studies may be
obscure, but the fact that various scholars are publishing on it is
enough, I think, to establish its significance for Wikipedia purposes.
In any case, the article is supposed to be about Cole--the whole
scholar, not just the famous blogger and TV personality. These Baha'i
articles (and I only included a few representative ones) illuminate an
important aspect of his scholarship.
By the way, according to my understanding, the Federalist Papers have
already been translated into Arabic, and published in a very limited
press run. Cole was trying to find out about getting the rights. --
Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.171 (talk)
17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was making germane comparisons between this article and Cole's
peers. Comparisons to Pokemon (Or my personal favorite of wiki-fluff:
Lightsaber combat) don't inform the discussion. As amply demonstrated
in the article itself, Cole's Baha'i research is not from whence his
notability comes — hence its extended treatment here is out of balance
and POV. Proof by assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Name and shame"? Well, apparently this discussion won't rely on
the merits but on name-calling, even after good-faith attempts. That's
too bad. So, I feel free to edit. MARussellPESE 03:14, 4 December 2007
(UTC)
You are comparing Cole with other well-known ME commentators.
But this avoids the question of whether Cole is "noteworthy" (which,
you'll note, is different from "famous") as a Baha'i scholar. Since
Pokemon are apparently noteworthy enough to deserve ample coverage on
Wikipedia, I propose that Baha'i Studies must also qualify. (Surely a
Baha'i would concede this point...?) So as you see, the example is in
fact germane.
As for name-calling, I wish to draw the attention of others to
the Baha'i strategy of attempting to erase embarrassing facts about
their religion from Wikipedia. I perceive that your interest in this
article is primarily of this nature. Of course you may edit, but do be
aware that your edits will be scrutinized. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned
comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-read WP:Notability. His research in general, the Baha'i
portions of which occupy an ever-shrinking portion of his work, was
never particularly noteworthy outside the field as identified in
article. He is notable as an ME commentator. Comparing him to others
like Ajami or Lewis is directly on-point.
Likewise the Talisman episode fails WP:Notability, even
for an obscure topic like Baha'i. It involved half-a-dozen or so
individuals out of a community of six million. It received no
independent coverage at all. And sources on it are neither dubiously
reliable as they are mostly made up of blog posts. But you know that
already from your edit wars on those pages.
And, of the nearly thirty articles on Baha'i he's penned,
you chose to summarize all of the ones critical of Baha'i. And you
accuse me of peddling POV? MARussellPESE (talk) 14:05, 10 December
2007 (UTC)
I agree - his Middle East scholarship is far more
important and notable than the Bahai stuff. The latter should be
mentioned, and if there is a reliable source explaining how bahai is
supposedly at the root of his thought, we can cite that, but a lot of
the anon's changes seem to constitute original research. Additionally,
he has removed some material that is important independently of the
bahai controversy. csloat (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Commodore, obviously Middle Eastern politics
are more important, but surely Baha'i Studies are notable enough to be
discussed. And once this is granted, what harm does it do to have more
detail rather than less? (MARusselPESE would have us censor all
details that make his religion look bad.) If anything, there should be
more detail about other subjects.
Baha'is often lie about their numbers (even
one million would be a stretch) but sure, the number of scholars of
Baha'ism is far below the number of Baha'i sheep. But this is not what
"notability" means. In particular, scholarship should be assumed to be
noteworthy, even if on an obscure subject in a small field.
The influence of Baha'ism on Cole's thought
may be found in Cole's own writings. Click on footnote number 13 (his
Baha'i belief) or 55 (on his meeting Baha'i martyrs in Iran). I am not
peddling any POV other than Cole's here.
My choice of Cole's Baha'i articles reflects
the fact that many are on obscure topics that fail to reflect his
basic beliefs. The critical ones, however, not only do that, but have
had the most influence (apart from Modernity and the Millennium). --
Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.144 (talk)
00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the anon's POV is certainly
showing by now. His desire to "name and shame", and accusations like
"You guys are like North Koreans worshipping Kim Jong-Il", "Baha'is
often lie", "Baha'i sheep", "MARusselPESE would have us censor", etc.
(By the way Dawud, if you were using an account, I'd have put up an
WP:NPA notice before now.)
If I really wanted to censor Cole's
conflicts with Baha'i administration, don't you think I'd be culling
it all out instead of leaving it basically alone for over a year? I've
never, till you brought your axe and grindstone, removed any material
on this subject. This was my first edit to the article.
Note that the version I prefer has a clear
link, which I added, to the totality of Cole's work on Baha'i,
including the critical stuff, while maintaining a streamlined article.
If you have to dig through footnotes to tease out "Cole's Baha'i
belief" then it's not as central as you're purporting it to be, is it?
Also, looking at his current Unitarian and Sufi pages on his personal
website it seems certain that he's left Baha'i, as a belief system at
least, behind. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't think anyone is saying
there should be nothing about Cole's Baha'i work here, only that it
should not be disproportionate to the rest of his far more well-known
work. Second, you didn't just add stuff about Baha'i, you also deleted
material about his academic works. Third, I don't know how you came to
the conclusion that Russell is Baha'i -- he may be, and I notice he
hasn't denied it, but I also never noticed him asserting a Baha'i
identity or faith (perhaps I missed it in the above?) Either way,
however, his religion is irrelevant to his ability to edit, and as he
pointed out, he did not edit out the previous material on Cole's
Baha'i writings before you got here. Fourth, I don't think it's wrong
to say that Cole's conflicts with Baha'i have influenced his thought.
But your edits put that influence at the core of his thought, and
denigrate all other possible influences, which is overboard. At best,
your edits are in conflict with WP:UNDUE.
Other than marveling at the Bahai temple
in Illinois when I used to live in Chicago, I know next to nothing
about Baha'i faith, politics, etc. So I'm not claiming any expertise
on this topic. But I do have a bit of background in Middle East
studies (though it's not my field per se), and Cole appears to be
something of a giant in that field. He is also very well known because
of frequent appearances in the media, as well as for his popular and
well-regarded weblog. I have read dozens of entries in his weblog and
seen/heard/read him in the mass media scores of times. In all of that,
his conflicts with Baha'i never came up; all I know about his
relationship to Baha'i is what I have read on this web page. I think
something should stay here about it but I don't think it should become
the central focus of this page. csloat (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007
(UTC)
"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
16th, 2003
<bs snip>
W
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> The pulling of the God's Greatest Name article had fuck all to do with
> me!
Bullshit! And given your tactic of vociferous indignant deciet, your
denial isn't worth the bandwidth above.
> After you created about 500 Wikipedia sock-puppets
I had 4 accounts.
> It's the Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Chickens Coming Home to
> Roost)
Bullshit! It was clear, unmistakable and orchestrated policy.
<bs snip>
> Just carry on telling everyone it's shit, and we'll carry on ignoring
> you
Well, why don't you ignore me. You FASCISTS keep threatening me with
being ignored for 8 years, yet I have yet to see you ignore. Perhaps I
am not being ignored - despite your silly threat - because there is
actually an audience for what I say about your cult, its tactic, Mike
Russell and you. This, for example, proves it:
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien.
So g'head, ignore me. It would be my pleasure to be ignored by a
criminal scum-sucker, demon such as you.
W
Sock-Puppet'ullah
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathtobah...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3d275091-e11e-4ee0...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > WTF is that supposed to mean? The pattern of the Bahaim IT committee
> > on wikipedia in either stamping out or obfuscating whenever it doesn't
> > meet the standard-line is etched all over the place. Besides you and
> > Dermod informed that cunt that the article was mine to begin with,
> > telegraphing your punch right here. He went and first gutted the
> > article of all content and then nominated it for deletion, in case you
> > forgot. So if anyone's "behavior" is at issue, it your redneck cultist
> > engineer friend in Cleveland, OHIO.
>
> I have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia;
You are a LIAR as clear as the sun rises above the firmaments each
day:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.."
PaulHammond
> On Oct 31, 1:25 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well, if ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE OR THE INTERNET, then you can hardly
> > complain if people use the same techiniques back to you, now can you?
>
> Who says I am complaining.
>
You keep starting threads to whinge about how unfair it is that the
Wikipedians have banned you, and won't say what you wish they would!
Sounds like complaining to me!
> > You have produced zip, zero, nada evidence of this so-called "Baha'im
> > IT committee" you're always burbling on about.
>
> I have produced more evidence of it - as have others - than you are
> allowed to admit publically, indeed.
>
What evidence? Zip, zero, nada, f-all. I've never seen any evidence
that this "committee" exists, apart from you consulting with your
white mice to assert that it does.
> > Why should anyone else share your delusions?
>
> Simply because quite a lot of people (including Will Johnson) share my
> perspective in the manner in which you Fascists manipulate information
> and contributions all over whackopedia. Remember this from Juan Cole's
> discussion page, which Mike Russell keeps blanking out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Colehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Cole&action=history
>
> Baha'i studies out of balance
>
> An anonymous editor has doubled discussion on this from the article's
> previous incarnation. Clearly, lists and summaries of articles are not
> encyclopedic.
>
Yup. You're trying to prove that you don't particularly care about
Wikipedia, and that you're not always complaining about how unfair it
is that it doesn't accept your viewpoint as the only one worth
printing by copying reams of comment from obscure talk pages that no-
one else has read.
Way to prove that you're not obsessing about this, Nima!
<reams of second hand comment snipped>
PaulHammond
Sock-Puppet'ullah wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:25 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > The pulling of the God's Greatest Name article had fuck all to do with
> > me!
>
> Bullshit! And given your tactic of vociferous indignant deciet, your
> denial isn't worth the bandwidth above.
>
Whatever. But I didn't tell Mike to get suspicious about "Sock-
puppetullah" being the originator and main contributer to that
article. He found that out for himself, after having endured YOUR
hate-campaign against him for a month or two, and YOUR attempts to
harrass him where he works in real life, too.
I don't think Mike needed my help to find your sock-puppets!
> > After you created about 500 Wikipedia sock-puppets
>
> I had 4 accounts.
>
I exaggerate for effect. But you are simply lying. There's a
wikipedia page that lists all your confirmed sock-puppets. It's got
about 20 on it, including one you named for me.
Let me just find the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_SecretChiefs3
I count sixteen on there, plus the original one SecretChiefs3, plus 3
attempts to make anonymous edits.
> > It's the Law of Unintended Consequences (aka Chickens Coming Home to
> > Roost)
>
> Bullshit! It was clear, unmistakable and orchestrated policy.
>
Bullshit! You brought it on yourself. If you make noise, people
notice you. Your tough luck if the attention you get is that people
arrest you rather than giving you an award for being a "good
wikipedian"
It's clear policy that Sockpuppets are banned on Wikipedia. Your
contempt for that policy is also clear. You just re-stated it on this
thread.
You SHOULD be banned from Wikipedia. You're a pathetic vandal.
>
> > Just carry on telling everyone it's shit, and we'll carry on ignoring
> > you
>
> Well, why don't you ignore me. You FASCISTS keep threatening me with
> being ignored for 8 years, yet I have yet to see you ignore. Perhaps I
> am not being ignored - despite your silly threat - because there is
> actually an audience for what I say about your cult, its tactic, Mike
> Russell and you. This, for example, proves it:
> http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien.
>
These people are nearly as kooky as you. That article is based on
lies - no wonder it appeals to you!
Paul
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> Whatever. But I didn't tell Mike to get suspicious about "Sock-
> puppetullah" being the originator and main contributer to that
> article.
You are part of a corporate structured Internet Committee of a
malicious and well-organized corporate-religious political lobby group
known as the Haifan Bahai organization. You are very much involved in
all facets of such decision implementation, and were very much
involved in that one, whatever your plausible denials.
> He found that out for himself, after having endured YOUR
> hate-campaign against him for a month or two, and YOUR attempts to
> harrass him where he works in real life, too.
Load of spin and shit! The campaign was all his, and I haven't been
his only target. It is etched all over the discussion logs of
wikipedia (which he is desperately trying to erase), and I only posted
his work address here. If that constitutes harrassing him, then he is
a pussy that shouldn't be given responsibility for being the official
Bahai Grand Inquisitor on wikipedia pushing the hardline of the IT
committee over there. Now if he believes that a hate campaign has been
launched against him, Mike Russell knows where I am. Get his lawyers
to come for me, if he has a case. I would be more than happy to hand
his ass - as well as the committee he works for - back to them on a
silver platter.
> I don't think Mike needed my help to find your sock-puppets!
Bullshit! To wit,
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MARussellPESE
Hi! Just got your message
Looks like I only check in here to see what's upset Nima most recently
- apparently, I haven't used my login since 27 June, and here it is
near the end of July. I'm here now for the same reason, and came
across Antandrus' page (and read a couple of his essays which made me
smile - I was just about to thank him, which is why I logged in and
found your message).
You've upset our friend recently, because today he's posted a mystical
Death Threat to you on talk.religion.bahai. My guess is that you
possibly removed a picture of some occult symbol, or else made an edit
to Ayahusca, or whatever that mystical drug page is called. It's all
"now you've really torn it! This isn't just an insult to Bayanis, it's
upsetting to powerful forces, more powerful than you could possibly
imagine! etc. etc. etc." I think its the funniest thing I've seen in
ages, and crossposted it to alt.usenet.kooks. You might find it less
amusing. He thinks you're called "Mark" incidentally, though I have
corrected him on that before. He said "thanks for confirming your
name", like it was some big secret rather than something that's
written on your user profile, but 2 weeks on and he's calling you Mark
again.
Anyway, thanks for the offer of drinks. PaulHammond (talk) 22:45, 19
July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PaulHammond
Thanks …
… for covering my back here. You seem to spend more time out in the
usenet world so you've probably tripped across him there. (I think
I've casually seen your handle out there.)
He got beat down hard here on WP for his conduct. I figured he'd blow
his stack elsewhere. Will check it out for a yuck. Cheers,
MARussellPESE (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I did check it out. Shit! Dude! Why do you bother? Nima clearly
needs to have is internet priveleges revoked at the Queensland Home
for the Dangerous to Themselves and Society and put right back on his
meds; but it can't be good for you to even engage.
He's the only person I've ever directed to WP:DBAD; but I'd like
to direct you to the nearest pub. If you were a Yank, I'd suggest the
nearest firing range (*chuckle*), but y'all are more civilized. In
either case if I were there I'd accompany you (and Viv) and buy the
ammunition.
Take care of yourself. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:19, 27 June
2008 (UTC)
Yes. I must have got him in the kisser. He created that thread
shortly after a checkuser I requested turned up a slew of quickly
banned sockpuppets of his. Once we seem to get him pitched off of the
playground here, he of to the usnets to blow his stack. Cheers,
MARussellPESE (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-
Russell above is thanking you directly for your *direct* participation
in the effort, which directly contradicts your spin above absolving
yourself. He is also threatening my life with the buying of ammunition
comment. It seems you can't even get your own story straight.
>I exaggerate for effect.
No, you are full of shit, and a lying piece of turd to boot, as once
again demonstrated. It's the Englishman in you.
Now send those lawyers my way, honkey mofo, so I can let Mike Russell
eat great gobs of my dark chocolate.
W
PaulHammond
> On Nov 1, 10:03 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. But I didn't tell Mike to get suspicious about "Sock-
> > puppetullah" being the originator and main contributer to that
> > article.
>
> You are part of a corporate structured Internet Committee of a
> malicious and well-organized corporate-religious political lobby group
> known as the Haifan Bahai organization.
No, I am not.
>You are very much involved in
> all facets of such decision implementation, and were very much
> involved in that one, whatever your plausible denials.
>
I am sure that such an organisation doesn't even exist. I know for a
fact that I am not a member of this organisation if it does.
So how Nima can say that he knows I am involved in "decision
implementation" of an organisation that is just his fantasy is beyond
me.
Or perhaps Nima can produce the documenation to prove me wrong?
The rest of my answer to this post has already been made on the new
thread which Nima started for the purpose.
Paul
Finnegan's Wake
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4abec3c5-6f74-4c23...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 8:58 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
> <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathtobah...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:3d275091-e11e-4ee0...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > WTF is that supposed to mean? The pattern of the Bahaim IT committee
>> > on wikipedia in either stamping out or obfuscating whenever it doesn't
>> > meet the standard-line is etched all over the place. Besides you and
>> > Dermod informed that cunt that the article was mine to begin with,
>> > telegraphing your punch right here. He went and first gutted the
>> > article of all content and then nominated it for deletion, in case you
>> > forgot. So if anyone's "behavior" is at issue, it your redneck cultist
>> > engineer friend in Cleveland, OHIO.
>>
>> I have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia;
>
> You are a LIAR as clear as the sun rises above the firmaments each
> day:
I hate to tell you this but the Sun actually doesn'r rise every morning ...
the earth rotates so as to meet it afresh each day.
Don't confuse your delusions with the facts!
If you want to call me a liar you will convince nobody but yourself unless
you produce some evidence. And I hate to tell you this but re-gurgi-posting
of a tongue-in cheek piss-take is NOt proof that I am telling porky pies in
respect of my relationship, if any, to Wilipedia.
I really can't help it if you're a vapid moron ... only you can do something
about that ... but, as you're a moron, it's probably too much to expect that
there could be any improvement.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> On 1 Nov, 05:18, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 10:03 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Whatever. But I didn't tell Mike to get suspicious about "Sock-
> > > puppetullah" being the originator and main contributer to that
> > > article.
>
> > You are part of a corporate structured Internet Committee of a
> > malicious and well-organized corporate-religious political lobby group
> > known as the Haifan Bahai organization.
>
> No, I am not.
Yes, you most certainly are:
"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
<transparent plausible denials snipped>
W
Death to Haifan Bahaism
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Don't confuse your delusions with the facts!
Like this, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."
-
W
PaulHammond
wrote:
> On Nov 1, 11:58 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Nov, 05:18, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 10:03 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Whatever. But I didn't tell Mike to get suspicious about "Sock-
> > > > puppetullah" being the originator and main contributer to that
> > > > article.
>
> > > You are part of a corporate structured Internet Committee of a
> > > malicious and well-organized corporate-religious political lobby group
> > > known as the Haifan Bahai organization.
>
> > No, I am not.
>
> Yes, you most certainly
Based on? Implausible accusation?
PaulHammond
Yes, NIma.
This is an example of a CHARACTER.
Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
On the TV screen, this effect is achieved by people called ACTORS, who
while they have actual bodies, are in fact paid to say lines written
by other people, are dressed and made up by other TV company
employees, and are filmed and broadcast by yet others.
What happens on the TV screen should not be confused with the real
life of the person who is pretending to be them on the programme.
You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between fantasies and
fictions and the real views and actions of real people.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> Based on? Implausible accusation?
Nope. On 8 years of solid observation, and now consensus.
W
"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
Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 22 Sep, 06:28, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a serious query:
> Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
> establishment will be held directly responsible.
> Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!
We're EVIL!
(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)
Paul
(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
kill your cat and turn your milk sour)
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> On 10 Nov, 03:35, Death to Haifan Bahaism <deathtobaha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:35 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> > <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Don't confuse your delusions with the facts!
>
> > Like this, for example:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
> > thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
> > lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
>
> > "The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
> > attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
> > and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
> > destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."
>
> > -
>
> > W
>
> Yes, NIma.
>
> This is an example of a CHARACTER.
In the paluverse FRAUD = CHARACTER. Thanks for admitting it.
> Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
> inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
Bullshit! Sing that one to the marines, especially when he publicly
DENIED being DERMOD.
<bs snip>
Finnegan's Wake
"Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3d188f5-ab3e-4615...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 9:10 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>> Based on? Implausible accusation?
>
> Nope. On 8 years of solid observation, and now consensus.
AH! The 78 million wee honky mice have come to a consensus.
Finnegan's Wake
>> Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
>> inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
>
> Bullshit! Sing that one to the marines, especially when he publicly
> DENIED being DERMOD.
You dumb cluck! That was the whole point of the exercise ... it was a
sting, a hustle, a piss take ... you know (well you don't actually) all
those things that some folks do for a bit of a giggle .... and I'm sure
still having a great giggle at the way you really don't seem to geddit!
PaulHammond
wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:10 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Based on? Implausible accusation?
>
> Nope. On 8 years of solid observation, and now consensus.
>
> W
That's 8 years of implausible accusation.
>
> "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
>
Eric later changed his mind! Star doesn't talk to you any more. Cal
Rollins doesn't post here.
Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
PaulHammond
Well, it wouldn't be a very effective hustle if as soon as someone
said "Are you dermod?" the fake identity fessed up, would it?
No sense of humour, Dermod. How did you manage to remain on good
terms with this guy for so long?
Sock-Puppet'ullah
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathtobaha...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:26237d05-6ed6-442a...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
> >> inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
>
> > Bullshit! Sing that one to the marines, especially when he publicly
> > DENIED being DERMOD.
>
Fraud. Quit evidently. That is what you do!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> On 11 Nov, 01:53, Death to Haifan Bahaism <deathtobaha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 9:10 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Based on? Implausible accusation?
>
> > Nope. On 8 years of solid observation, and now consensus.
>
> > W
>
> That's 8 years of implausible accusation.
On the contrary, palu. Thankfully, most of the incrimination has come
directly form yourself during most of that time, esp. in the "we" and
"ours" you drop continually.
"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
Paul Andrew Hammond:
Sock-Puppet'ullah
A patented tactic of your fraudsters is to hide behind confessions of
humor whenever you are caught. It is a transparent tactic of plausible
deniability that doesn't hold. Fraud is fraud, and what Dead Weed did
is an unassailable and documented instance amongst many.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Nov 12, 8:44 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
> <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathtobaha...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:26237d05-6ed6-442a...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
>> >> inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
>>
>> > Bullshit! Sing that one to the marines, especially when he publicly
>> > DENIED being DERMOD.
>>
>> You dumb cluck! That was the whole point of the exercise ... --
>
> Fraud. Quit evidently. That is what you do!
If I were you, which, fortunately, I'm not I would do three of three
things: -
Firstly, I would not emulate the DST
Secondly, I would check the definition of fraud.
Thirdly, as a result of following steps 1 and 2, I would not have answered
my post in the way you did.
Finnegan's Wake
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:a63a7f16-ff30-46d6...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > This is an example of a CHARACTER.
>
> In the paluverse FRAUD = CHARACTER. Thanks for admitting it.
>
> > Like the people who appear on your TV screen, this was Dermod
> > inventing a FICTIONAL persona.
>
> Bullshit! Sing that one to the marines, especially when he publicly
> DENIED being DERMOD.
>
> <bs snip>
>
Well, it wouldn't be a very effective hustle if as soon as someone
said "Are you dermod?" the fake identity fessed up, would it?
No sense of humour, Dermod. How did you manage to remain on good
terms with this guy for so long?
FW
It was difficult. One starts with a mission of trying to save him from
himself ... and then one realises that whilst one can do the impossible,
miracles take a lot longer!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Firstly, I would not emulate the DST
You have. She has been your Source of Emulation since 2002.
Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 22 Sep, 06:28, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a serious query:
> Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
> establishment will be held directly responsible.
> Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!
We're EVIL!
(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)
Paul
(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
PaulHammond
> On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 11 Nov, 01:53, Death to Haifan Bahaism <deathtobaha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 9:10 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Based on? Implausible accusation?
>
> > > Nope. On 8 years of solid observation, and now consensus.
>
> > > W
>
> > That's 8 years of implausible accusation.
>
> On the contrary, palu. Thankfully, most of the incrimination has come
> directly form yourself during most of that time, esp. in the "we" and
> "ours" you drop continually.
>
So, you don't think my "we" and "ours" in this particular post was
particularly and deliberately calculated to make you post along the
order of "Aha! See - Palu's admitting he's one of them!"
Hello, you cur - my name is Pavlov. Pleased to meet you.
In a minute, I'll ring my little bell, then you can start salivating!
Paul
> "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
>
Considering his recent posts in this group and elsewhere, moving on
from a position of bitterness towards his former faith to a new
equilibrium with his current beliefs, do you honestly consider it a
tenable proposition that Eric's likely to be a staunch witness of how
right you were in the next vexatious court case you try to bring
against me?
He seems to have moved on and left his past behind him. Isn't it time
YOU did some similar work on your own psyche?
PaulHammond
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dermod - is it not the case that you have ALREADY explained the
definition of fraud to this dumb cluck twice?
I don't think the explanation is likely to go in.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
Paul Andrew Hammond:
Sock-Puppet'ullah
Finnegan's Wake
> If I were you, which, fortunately, I'm not I would do three of three
> things: -
>
> Firstly, I would not emulate the DST
>
> Secondly, I would check the definition of fraud.
>
> Thirdly, as a result of following steps 1 and 2, I would not have answered
> my post in the way you did.
Dermod - is it not the case that you have ALREADY explained the
definition of fraud to this dumb cluck twice?
I don't think the explanation is likely to go in.
FW
I have indeed on divers occasions, explained the legal definition of fraud
to him... not that I really should have had to do that. As you so deftly
described it - I have an amateur interest in the law of sufficient depth
that I have appeared to plead before the High Court ... to lose the battle
and win the war! Mimikins on the other hand, some years ago was supposedly
pursuing legal studies as to enable his prcessing his own legal actions. He
even sent me a scan of the judgement in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1893] - a standard in the law of contract that I first became
acquainted with more years ago than I, probably, have left on this plain of
existence.
Obviously he didn't complete the course - perhaps the burden of disciplining
his mind (or the 78 million rodent inhabitants thereof) to distinguish twixt
fact and fable was too much ... and all the fuses blew ... with results that
amuse us all ... almost all, at any rate ... a disciple has arisen, at least
in the short term, to plead his case.
PS I wonder how much he's paying her. Should we put in for an increase on
the strength of that?
PPS Watch how both of them will impale themselves on that TIC comment.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> Eric later changed his mind!
He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>Star doesn't talk to you any more.
Thanks be the Godhead, the Lord of all the worlds! No, she's busily
engaged (one-sidedly at that) with "Andrew Carter" presently.
> Cal
> Rollins doesn't post here.
>
> Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
Archives and archives of posts - and I haven't even gotten to all the
posts I skimmed off Karen Bacquet's unenrolled bahai from 2002-2007
that will condemn you in any court of law as a full fledged bahaim.
W
All Bad
> On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>> Eric later changed his mind!
>
> He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
>>Star doesn't talk to you any more.
>
> Thanks be the Godhead, the Lord of all the worlds! No, she's busily
> engaged (one-sidedly at that) with "Andrew Carter" presently.
>
>> Cal
>> Rollins doesn't post here.
>>
>> Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
>
> Right here,
> http://groups.google.com.au/groups/search?enc_author=AgTcCxcAAAC1t8Bul7sNKcdV2CXKBad5GbnCKmNU4WStdVtIZUVNxw&scoring=d
Good grief! Do I have to spell it out for you? The consensus of your
readers is that you are a whack job, a wing nut, and not even Governer of
Alaska. See the doctor and take your _prescription_ meds and stop taking
the illegal drugs.
- All Bad
PaulHammond
> On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Eric later changed his mind!
>
> He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
Oh look! Nima wants to call somebody a spineless moron with one side
of his mouth, and then cite them as a reliable (bad) character witness
out of the other side of his mouth.
Seems I called it correctly! THis is PRECISELY like the Bill Pleasant
situation. One day you're calling him a fraudster and a liar. Next
day you're quoting his (years old) accusations of poisoning against
the Baha'is and saying "So there!"
"Truth" really is a negotiatiable commodity in your brain, isn't it?
> >Star doesn't talk to you any more.
>
> Thanks be the Godhead, the Lord of all the worlds! No, she's busily
> engaged (one-sidedly at that) with "Andrew Carter" presently.
>
> > Cal
> > Rollins doesn't post here.
>
> > Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
>
> Right here,http://groups.google.com.au/groups/search?enc_author=AgTcCxcAAAC1t8Bu...
>
> Archives and archives of posts - and I haven't even gotten to all the
> posts I skimmed off Karen Bacquet's unenrolled bahai from 2002-2007
> that will condemn you in any court of law as a full fledged bahaim.
>
> W
There's another thing you got wrong! Whoever told you that we had
argued?
btw - how are you going to take me to court on the charge of "Being a
Baha'i"? Which legal code does that come under?
You're a lot of fun, Nima - it's been real!
PaulHammond
>
> > Eric later changed his mind!
>
> He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
Actually, this is a response to a post I made ages ago - before Eric's
recent posting.
My reference was to private emails between Eric and myself that were
contemporary with the one Nima is quoting all over the place.
Paul
Sock-Puppet'ullah
wrote:
> "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e5cede95-c8b1-4484...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Eric later changed his mind!
>
> > He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> > Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> > fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
> >>Star doesn't talk to you any more.
>
> > Thanks be the Godhead, the Lord of all the worlds! No, she's busily
> > engaged (one-sidedly at that) with "Andrew Carter" presently.
>
> >> Cal
> >> Rollins doesn't post here.
>
> >> Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
>
> > Right here,
>
> Good grief! Do I have to spell it out for you? The consensus of your
> readers is that you are a whack job, a wing nut, and not even Governer of
> Alaska. See the doctor and take your _prescription_ meds and stop taking
> the illegal drugs.
>
> - All Bad
Fuck you and the horse you rode on, cultist criminal hack! Your day
when you will finally be put before a firing squad are not that far
away. I'll make sure to be there personally to laugh in your face as
you make your one-way trip to your master in hell.
It’s this simple. On the surface your organization could profess the
most innocuous, most widely acceptable, morally unassailable position.
Makes it much harder to criticise, don’t you think? It’s what goes on
behind the scenes that matters. You cosy up with the likes of Chevron
Texaco, ExxonMobil and Estee Lauder, and you’re in bed with the wrong
crowd. Dirty, dirty money, and all the claims in the world to fighting
for ‘women’s rights’, human rights or the ‘earth’s rights’ aren’t
going to make a difference to the fact that if you deal with these
people, accept their money, let them have any sway in the direction or
interests of your organization, you’re cosying up to some of the most
corrupt corporate monsters, and great intellectual and moral cowards
of our time. Do you believe that Chevron is a bastian of moral
courage? If you don’t, then don’t waste your breath trying to paint
Wahid or anyone associated with him or criticism of the TJC as some
kind of misogynist. The same claims made about the TJC and about other
'charitable organizations' and NGO/lobby group can and have been made
in other contexts. However, this is the context to air the issues
regarding the corruption of one of the bodies associated with the
Bahai’s and their interests. CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION, and POWER IS
POWER, NO MATTER WHAT AN ORGANISATION SAYS ITS UP TO. Anyone with an
ounce of moral courage, who really stood up for what they say they do,
would spit in the faces of these companies for they are the hands of
oppression.
So how about one of the TJC’s financial contributors?: Chevron
Texaco.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/667/6673
“Pits the size of football fields filled with a choking sludge of oil
and dead animals. Children suffering from leukaemia at four times the
national average. Birth defects and miscarriages soaring. Drinking
water polluted by carcinogens for hundreds of square kilometres.
The unhindered oil pollution of Ecuador’s pristine rainforest began in
1970 and lasted for over two decades. When Texaco Oil walked out of
the country with US$30 billion in profits stashed in its pockets, it
left a toxic legacy for 30,000 rainforest dwellers that was 30 times
worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska.
From 1970 until 1992, the US corporation dumped in excess of 18.5
billion gallons of acutely toxic “water of formation” into more than
650 open and unlined pits, as well as directly into the swamps,
streams and rivers that make up the Amazon rainforest of northern
Ecuador. “Water of formation” contains some of the most dangerous
known chemicals, including benzene, toluene, and Policyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs). The result has been what experts believe to be
the worst case of oil pollution on the planet and, after Chernobyl,
possibly the second-worst environmental catastrophe in human history.
In 2002, Chevron took over Texaco and inherited its Ecuadorian
devastation, but the company failed to live up to CEO Dave O’Reilly’s
promise to “develop affordable, reliable energy supplies in a safe,
environmentally responsible way”, forcing five indigenous groups to
file a class-action lawsuit against the oil giant in 2003.”
(read the rest of the article on the link)
Now, show me how the criticisms of the TJC raised by Wahid and myself
and more ‘anti-women’s rights’ than taking money from and having your
name associated with people like Chevron Texaco? What is more morally
reprehensible than taking money from people like this?
And no, these organizations are not modern day Robin Hoods, taking
from the rich and giving it back to the ‘poor’ and needy. Donations
for big business are a tax write off, a way of publicly cleaning up
their image, and enmeshing the interest of monetary benefactors with
their beneficiaries.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4133
Boycott Chevron-Texaco
OilWatch
September 26th, 2002
OilWatch and the member organizations of Ecuador and Nigeria are
calling a boycott against Chevron-Texaco Company, to punish this
company for the environmental damages and the human rights abuses
commited during its operations in Nigeria and Ecuador.
Chevron-Texaco will face trials for its impacts in Nigeria and
Ecuador.
These countries' organizations use boycott as an instrument of
pressure against the company, to make it remember that whatever is
polluted MUST be cleaned up.
At times when transnational companies frame up regimes of impunity for
themselves, we must join efforts to punish companies with our protest,
and our vow of censorship by not consumming these companies' products.
This campaign will provide a precedent to avoid other oil companies'
impunity, that in the same ways cause destruction and death.
Just so we’re clear on the issue, let’s put another face out there.
Maurice Strong. A perfect example of using a smokescreen of an
unassailable moral position (ie environmental protection) to engage in
some very suspect practices.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html
At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice Strong
Thursday, February 08, 2007
By Claudia Rosett and George Russell
AP
Maurice Strong
NEW YORK — Before the United Nations can save the planet, it needs to
clean up its own house. And as scandal after scandal has unfolded over
the past decade, from Oil for Food to procurement fraud to peacekeeper
rape, the size of that job has become stunningly clear.
But any understanding of the real efforts that job entails should
begin with a look at the long and murky career of Maurice Strong, the
man who may have had the most to do with what the U.N. has become
today, and still sparks controversy even after he claims to have cut
his ties to the world organization.
From Oil for Food to the latest scandals involving U.N. funding in
North Korea, Maurice Strong appears as a shadowy and often critically
important figure.
Strong, now 77, is best known as the godfather of the environmental
movement, who served from 1973-1975 as the founding director of the
U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi. UNEP is now a globe-
girdling organization with a yearly budget of $136 million, which
claims to act as the world’s environmental conscience. Strong
consolidated his eco-credentials as the organizer of the U.N.’s 1992
environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which in turn paved the way
for the controversial 1997 Kyoto Treaty on controlling greenhouse gas
emissions.
But his green credentials scarcely begin to do justice to Strong’s
complicated back-room career. He has spent decades migrating through a
long list of high-level U.N. posts, standing behind the shoulder of
every U.N. secretary-general since U Thant . Without ever holding
elected office, he has had a hand in some of the world’s most
important bureaucratic appointments, both at the U.N. and at the World
Bank. A Canadian wheeler-dealer with an apple face and pencil
mustache, Strong has parlayed his personal enthusiasms and connections
into a variety of huge U.N. projects, while punctuating his public
service with private business deals.
(please refer to the rest of the article on the link provided as it is
very long and thorough).
Remember for future posts in response:
Raising questions about Maurice Strong and his associated business
practices DOES NOT EQUAL ANTI-ENVIRONMENT
Rasing questions about the abuse of children in the Catholic Church
DOES NOT EQUAL ANTI-CATHOLIC CHURCH
Raising questions about the associations and operation of the Tahirih
Justice Center- DOES NOT EQUAL ANTI-WOMEN
Sock-Puppet'ullah
> On 16 Nov, 10:40, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Eric later changed his mind!
>
> > He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> > Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> > fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
Ya, you gotta problem with it? Tough shit, spinless moron!
"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
Paul Andrew Hammond:
Sock-Puppet'ullah
What does that tell you about Eric? Telling me he thinks you are a
mole, while sucking your cock in another conversation.
"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
Paul Andrew Hammond:
All Bad
On Nov 17, 12:31 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e5cede95-c8b1-4484...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Eric later changed his mind!
>
> > He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> > Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> > fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
> >>Star doesn't talk to you any more.
>
> > Thanks be the Godhead, the Lord of all the worlds! No, she's busily
> > engaged (one-sidedly at that) with "Andrew Carter" presently.
>
> >> Cal
> >> Rollins doesn't post here.
>
> >> Where's your "consensus"? Where's your evidence?
>
> > Right here,
> >http://groups.google.com.au/groups/search?enc_author=AgTcCxcAAAC1t8Bu...
>
> Good grief! Do I have to spell it out for you? The consensus of your
> readers is that you are a whack job, a wing nut, and not even Governer of
> Alaska. See the doctor and take your _prescription_ meds and stop taking
> the illegal drugs.
>
> - All Bad
SP: Fuck you and the horse you rode on, cultist criminal hack! Your day
when you will finally be put before a firing squad are not that far
away. I'll make sure to be there personally to laugh in your face as
you make your one-way trip to your master in hell.
SP: It’s this simple. On the surface your organization could profess the
most innocuous, most widely acceptable, morally unassailable position.
Makes it much harder to criticise, don’t you think? It’s what goes on
behind the scenes that matters. You cosy up with the likes of Chevron
Texaco, ExxonMobil and Estee Lauder, and you’re in bed with the wrong
crowd. Dirty, dirty money, and all the claims in the world to fighting
for ‘women’s rights’, human rights or the ‘earth’s rights’ aren’t
going to make a difference to the fact that if you deal with these
people, accept their money, let them have any sway in the direction or
It's this simple: I don't take money from the oil companies or Estee
Lauder. I don't copy from the meat puppet and paste wherever I feel like.
- All Bad
SP: interests of your organization, you’re cosying up to some of the most
Sock-Puppet'ullah
wrote:
> I don't copy from the meat puppet and paste wherever I feel like.
No, you have a professional IT committee doing that for you.
PaulHammond
> On Nov 17, 12:39 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Nov, 10:40, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Eric later changed his mind!
>
> > > He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> > > Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> > > fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
> > Oh look! Nima wants to call somebody a spineless moron!
>
> Ya, you gotta problem with it? Tough shit, spinless moron!
>
(context restored)
Oh look! Nima wants to call somebody a spineless moron with one side
of his mouth, and then cite them as a reliable (bad) character
witness
out of the other side of his mouth.
Seems I called it correctly! THis is PRECISELY like the Bill
Pleasant
situation. One day you're calling him a fraudster and a liar. Next
day you're quoting his (years old) accusations of poisoning against
the Baha'is and saying "So there!"
"Truth" really is a negotiatiable commodity in your brain, isn't it?
PaulHammond
> On Nov 17, 12:42 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Nov, 10:40, "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:17 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Eric later changed his mind!
>
> > > He hasn't said anything here about that specifically, and if he has,
> > > Eric Smalley is a moral coward. Anything he says is predicated by 1)
> > > fear and 2) his desire to rejoin the herd.
>
> > Actually, this is a response to a post I made ages ago - before Eric's
> > recent posting.
>
> > My reference was to private emails between Eric and myself that were
> > contemporary with the one Nima is quoting all over the place.
>
> What does that tell you about Eric? Telling me he thinks you are a
> mole, while sucking your cock in another conversation.
>
It tells me that you're tone-deaf to context, and read into people's
posts whatever you WISH they had said rather than understanding what
they really said.
We've been through this before, when you tried to use the same trick
of spilling one of Dermod's private emails all over this group in an
attempt to drive a wedge between us, and later tried using it as a
bludgeon to bash me over the head with, until Dermod showed up here
and made you look stupid.
And I believe the nuances of the context of the 2003 post from Eric
Stetson were gone over in sufficient detail in the first thread in
which you posted it. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
As Dermod so eloquently said, if Eric suggested that the Pope was
Protestant I'd be inclined to believe him. Your trustworthiness is on
a completely different plane of existence - as evidenced by your phony
concern for the well-being of Fred Glaysher.
Paul