Libeling Pat Kohli on SourceWatch.org

6 views
Skip to first unread message

All Bad

unread,
Mar 5, 2009, 8:37:30 PM3/5/09
to
AB: Part of the W. Azal pattern is projection. When he accuses someone of
something, dimes will get you dollars, W is talking about one of his own
past times, and projecting it on his current target.

AB: In the past month or so, W has posted the Sourcewatch article that he
wrote on Pat Kohli to TRB.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/search?q=Sourcewatch+Pat+Kohli&start=0&scoring=d&
The sense I have is that in his own special way he is trying to intimidate
posters here. I could be wrong.

AB: One of the things that came up recently at Sourcewatch.org was the
accusation of libeling. This got moved over from the basic page to the
discussion. W. Azal, says that libeling is a fact.

WA: Hi Diane, the two major references in this piece are news articles.
Second, we can substantiate and furnish prima facie evidence of the
libel/defamation charges. I understand your position that there could
be a liability issue with SW in inclusion of this material, but you
also should be aware that these are statements of fact.

AB: W also starts to hint to his new Sourcewatch.org discussion partners
about the bahooooooveyeyeyeyeyey IT committee HQ (Bitch-Q).

WA: That stated, I'd like to address something else here. We went through
a similar situation with Bob when this article first went up. After
another editor weighed in, and I suggested Bob might have been
contacted by these people and lobbied, Bob backed off. It appears that
everytime I weigh on something with this article you guys get nervous,
so I'd like to ask you, have you and SW been lobbied regarding this
article?

AB: Yeah, baaaaby, the Bitch-Q is getting in the way of W! His life is
being ruined by the Bitch-Q. They exist only to ruin his life! But what
about the birth of the Bitch-Q? We can use the usenet archive to study the
birth of the Bitch-Q, now strangling the life out of W as he tries to fill
the void of his jobless and not yet retired, drug dealing existence. Right
here on TRB, way back when W was still Nima Hazini, but still believing he
was THE ONE, for those of you who forgot, or were not following TRB in
DEC02-Jan03.

NH(W-2003): Mark Foster has admitted in the past that the presence of
various
individuals on the internet contains a financial dividend of up to
$10,000.00 + per annum by the satanic AO cult to its various online
agents. Susan Maniac has never explicitly denied that she recieves
financial assistance for her internet presence, and neither has Pat
Kohli. Obviously if these people had real jobs with real lives they
would not be continually wheeled out to these sites to respond to
every single post posted by any percieved given enemy of their
corrupt, sleazy, satanic organization and cult which puts Scientology
to shame.
Nima Hazini, DEC2002
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/fe8c74a12c81ee48

NH (W-2003): Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that
Kholi is
a paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on the
internet to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It
is an even better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My
Revelation) is paid by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster
who admitted the monies that he was being paid by the baha'i cult
administration. These glaze eyed cultists speak with forked tongues
and have the gall to talk about a credibility which they themselves do
even not possess nor would they know what credibility was, since they
have sold their souls collectively to the accursed Satan of
materialism and Big LIE. Thus, their whole aim when uncomfortable
facts are brought to them is to smear and call into question the
integrities of those who dare question the flimsy foundations of their
dangerous, malicious cult, rather than the issues.
Nima Hazini, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0&cd=US&hl=en?pli=1


AB: If you scroll down you see Corax pointing out he does not post to
usenet for $10K per year and a rejection of some of Nima's recent
activities. Of course you see the hypocrisy of Nima accusing contributors
of being professional puppets and then projecting about attacks on
credibility - even though he is still posting as THE ONE!

AB: Shortly after, who should appear to corroborate, or dispute the alleged
confession of Mark Foster? Mark Foster, of course!

MF: Nima, I never told you that I had received
$10,000, a portion of that amount, or any other
amount from the Baha'i Administration. It is
simply not true.
MArk Foster, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1294ab6b0cddff34

AB: So, even though W's original 'evidence' of the Bitch-Q was his
imaginings, he's continued to accuse and accuse for six years. Last month
he posted here his demand that the UHJ tell him he is wrong about the
Bitch-Q. At least, I think he did that. I was trying to remember what the
day of ignominy was about. I guess if he did't send the UHJ a letter or an
email, but just posted here, and got a response, that would imply that at
least there is an informal conduit, but I guess that did not happen either.

AB: So, with no evidence, for _years_, even changes in personality from THE
ONE to just a person, from Nima to W, the lie remains the same. But he says
that others are libeling on TRB.

AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his sidekick,
Atomiser.

- All Bad


Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 5, 2009, 8:56:15 PM3/5/09
to
CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles

[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]

"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]

Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]

[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles

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

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 8:41:21 AM3/6/09
to
On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

> AB:  BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his sidekick,
> Atomiser.

The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.

And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.

G'head, sue me!

W

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 8:43:18 AM3/6/09
to

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 10:41:36 AM3/6/09
to

I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever
logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.

The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi
article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.

So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you
to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?

Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?

Paul

All Bad

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 7:58:04 PM3/6/09
to

"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:767dcc2d-04d3-4926...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

> AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> sidekick,
> Atomiser.

WA: The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being


lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.

WA: And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/


defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.

WA: G'head, sue me!

AB: Dear fantasist, you got any money? Everything I see from you is
consistent with a layabout fantasist who might be picking up a grand a month
from the Baha'i AO for acting like an internet kook of a disgruntled
ex-Baha'i. Star* says you have no money. Ali Duran said you were a sponge.
I don't have good money to go after bad money.

AB: What I said up above is that the wherever you go, there you are. You
bring your meanness and paranoia with you, and after you are somewhere you
start to get comfortable and like gaz after beer and beans, it just comes
out, and people smell it.

AB: So, where is your libel stuff? Where did I or Pat libel you, or anyone
else? BTW, May as Bill does not count, because a) I have respect for Bill
Ayers, b) it was obviously incredible that May would just happen to be Bill
A. and c) it was an example of guilt by association which May was trying to
practice.

AB: BTW, you are stuttering.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/46ef078931001733

- All Bad
- All Bad

- All Bad


All Bad

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 8:02:02 PM3/6/09
to

"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfbd2fe3-5ab1-4341...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

Dear fantasist, you got any money? Everything I see from you is


consistent with a layabout fantasist who might be picking up a grand a month
from the Baha'i AO for acting like an internet kook of a disgruntled
ex-Baha'i. Star* says you have no money. Ali Duran said you were a sponge.
I don't have good money to go after bad money.

What I said up above is that the wherever you go, there you are. You


bring your meanness and paranoia with you, and after you are somewhere you
start to get comfortable and like gaz after beer and beans, it just comes

out, and people smell it.

So, where is your libel stuff? Where did I or Pat libel you, or anyone
else? BTW, May as Bill does not count, because a) I have respect for Bill
Ayers, b) it was obviously incredible that May would just happen to be Bill
A. and c) it was an example of guilt by association which May was trying to
practice.

AB: BTW, you are stuttering.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/9bdf78b7387e0601

AB: Now you got me stuttering! Oh W, I'm so afraid of your voodoo powers!

- All Bad

- All Bad

- All Bad
- All Bad


All Bad

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 8:53:37 PM3/6/09
to

<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3f84b246-af5c-4e42...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 6, 1:41 pm, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> > sidekick,
> > Atomiser.
>
> The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
> lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
> KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
> whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
> living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
> this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
> get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
> or aren't a hack.
>
> And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
> defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
>
> G'head, sue me!
>
> W

"The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to."

PH: I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever


logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.

PH: The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi


article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.

PH: So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you


to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?

PH: Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?


AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime makes
it worse?

- All Bad

All Bad

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 8:53:05 PM3/6/09
to

<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3f84b246-af5c-4e42...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 1:41 pm, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > AB: BTW, the SW editors are catching on to the games of W and his
> > sidekick,
> > Atomiser.
>
> The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
> lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
> KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
> whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
> living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
> this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
> get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
> or aren't a hack.
>
> And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
> defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
>
> G'head, sue me!
>
> W

"The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to."

PH: I have never contacted the editors of Sourcewatch, nor have I ever


logged on there, or even created an identity there, let alone edited
one article or left one comment on anyone's talkpages.

PH: The only thing I have done is clicked on the link to the Pat Kholi


article, which Nima has recently taken to reposting in its entirety
after virtually every post Pat makes to this discussion group, clicked
over from there into the discussion, and then read the discussion and
copied Diana's comments on why she removed Nima's unsubstantiated
accusation against Pat over to here.

PH: So, Nima, what you are saying is that it's perfectly all right for you


to copy reams and reams of material from Sourcewatch over to here, day
after day, all with active links back to the mother article. But that
if I ONCE copy ONE paragraph over from that article site to here, I'm
committing some kind of crime?

PH: Is THAT what you're trying to make us buy?

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 6, 2009, 10:41:55 PM3/6/09
to
On Mar 7, 11:53 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he
thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
trademark infringement I wonder?

http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 2:03:05 AM3/7/09
to

All Bad

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 5:56:38 AM3/7/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbf36a59-84eb-4f39...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly the
subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if you
are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he trusts
me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked out
opinion.

MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he


thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive

AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered States"
I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't help but
wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing in the
movie. Do you know?

MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i

AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
Daime is good.

organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
trademark infringement I wonder?

AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
will tell you, I am not the UHJ. Ask them your questions yourself.

- All Bad

http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant


maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 6:48:18 PM3/7/09
to
On Mar 7, 8:56 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly
affiliated with the Baha'i organization.

>
> MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> AB:  Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> Daime is good.
>
> organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> AB:  I don't know.  Why do you ask me?  I might not tell you my name, but I
> will tell you, I am not the UHJ.  

Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
makes things even more complicated for you.


> Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> - All Bad
>
> http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be
able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in
the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 7:29:37 PM3/7/09
to

Interesting move, May.

Aor

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 9:29:29 PM3/7/09
to
> Interesting move, May.- Hide quoted text -

Very interesting indeed, and one you don't have a hope to answer.

W

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 9:41:15 PM3/7/09
to
On Mar 8, 10:29 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:

Especially interesting considering that All Bad/Pat Kohli has answered
numerous questions regarding his involvement with the Navy AS PAT
KOHLI, as well as having cited his pursuits in assisting with literacy
and race relations programs- which are both externally verifiable
activities undertaken by Pat Kohli.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d

Now, either poster All Bad is Pat Kohli, or user All Bad is committing
a level of identity fraud by posting and addressing personal questions
as Pat Kohli, or multiple people are posting as Pat Kohli/All Bad,
including Pat Kohli himself- hence answering to certain issues raised
about his career with the military and involvements with other
organizations. So if Pat Kohli now realizes that certain of his
actions, including his speedy support for use Mash_ghasem's claims
that Wahid Azal is acting as an agent of the IRI, are in fact legally
actionable, he may well be attempting to distance himself from the
posts he has made here as All Bad. Unfortunately, this is a not a
winning situation, as denying his identity as All Bad not only raises
the previous issues of fraudulent posting activity by a key Baha'i
member of this board, but further establishes collusion amongst other
members of the board such as yourself, Paul. Consequently, the
existence of the internet committee you keep denying looks more likely
by the day, and at the very least, these factors raise SERIOUS
questions about the activities of All Bad/Pat Kohli and any other
related posters.

All Bad

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 9:53:23 PM3/7/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a679c0b5-bcc1-43b2...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 7, 8:56 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
(snip)

>
> > AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime
> > makes
> > it worse?
>
> > - All Bad
>
> AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly the
> subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if you
> are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> trusts
> me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked out
> opinion.
>
> MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what he
> thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
> AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered States"
> I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't help
> but
> wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing in
> the
> movie. Do you know?

MIA1: Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly


affiliated with the Baha'i organization.

AB: I know I don't have a Baha'i Daime drinker in my residence, so
"Obviously" is not the case. Do you know what "obvious" means, or
"resident"?


>
> MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> Daime is good.
>
> organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
> will tell you, I am not the UHJ.

MIA1: Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another


thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple

AB: I felt it might be constructive to inform you that I am not the UHJ
since it seemed to me that you were communicating to me a question for the
UHJ, "Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him" In plain
English, "I would not know". I would not know because I am not the UHJ.
Hey, if you are drinking that stuff, too, please don't drink and post.

MIA1: people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false

AB: What are you talking about now?

MIA1: names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually

AB: What is your name?

MIA1: makes things even more complicated for you.

AB: Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.

> Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> - All Bad
>
> http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

MIA1: It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be

AB: What organization might that be? In the context of Daime, I do not
represent the DEA.

MIA1: able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about


such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements

AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused. I'll spell it out for you though.
In this context, TRB, I represent no organization. Rather emphatically, on
TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.

MIA1: from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?

AB: What individual would that be? Where do they live? What have they
done? It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
the Dawning Place of the Praise of God. At first glance, this looks really
great. HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
Williamette? I did, several times.

MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in

AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about it
other than ignoring it.

MIA1: the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the


Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements

AB: I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
SI.

MIA1: are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the


United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a

AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do. I suggest you
take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
interested in.

MIA1: context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only


employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,

AB: The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
Dallas Cowboys. Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
similar to the ring symbol. It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
an expert in these matters.

MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to


the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.

AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.

AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.

AB: Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money, in
addition to Mark Foster. Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years. Before you believed it,
an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you believe
that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
representative of the UHJ. That is ridiculous. If you believe that I am
with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
your own gullibility. Azal is the libeler. He lied about my role in the
Gaza war. He's lied about a lot of other things. You are backing a
propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it. Are you oblivious? Are you
simply misled? You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
Azal.

- All Bad


All Bad

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 10:12:23 PM3/7/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b218afb-e60e-4d5b...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 8, 10:29 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
(snip)

>
> > > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > > the
> > > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > > you
> > > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > > trusts
> > > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > > out
> > > opinion.
>
> > > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > > he
> > > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>

AB: Note, I addressed _you_ as Bill Ayers. _You_ recognized I was
addressing _you_ and _you_ responded. I doubt very much you are really Bill
Ayers, though you might be in Chicago.

> > > AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered
> > > States"
> > > I think it was in the early 1980s, right after the 70s, and I can't
> > > help but
> > > wonder if Daime might be like what the John Hurt character was doing
> > > in the
> > > movie. Do you know?
>
> > Obviously 'resident Baha'i Daime drinker' refers to a person clearly
> > affiliated with the Baha'i organization.
>
> > > MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> > > AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here
> > > that
> > > Daime is good.
>
> > > organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> > > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but
> > > I
> > > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> > Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> > thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
> > people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
> > names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
> > makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> Interesting move, May.

MIA1: Especially interesting considering that All Bad/Pat Kohli has

answered
numerous questions regarding his involvement with the Navy AS PAT
KOHLI, as well as having cited his pursuits in assisting with literacy
and race relations programs- which are both externally verifiable
activities undertaken by Pat Kohli.

AB: As I point out above, even you know when you are being addressed and
you respond and it is no proof at all of your identity. You are anonymous
and represent no organization on TRB. I get that. I can relate to it. I
can play at tripping you up, and you dodge, you stay anonymous. You can
play at tripping me up, and I dodge. But I am not confused into believing
you are Bill Ayers.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d

MIA1: Now, either poster All Bad is Pat Kohli, or user All Bad is

committing
a level of identity fraud by posting and addressing personal questions

AB: I don't think Pat Kholi is the only one who worked for the Navy, knew
some Baha'is who flew on P-3 aircraft, or was in the literacy council, or
worked on race relations, or had teenage kids, or drove a car, or saw a
dentist.

MIA1: as Pat Kohli, or multiple people are posting as Pat Kohli/All Bad,


including Pat Kohli himself- hence answering to certain issues raised
about his career with the military and involvements with other
organizations. So if Pat Kohli now realizes that certain of his
actions, including his speedy support for use Mash_ghasem's claims
that Wahid Azal is acting as an agent of the IRI, are in fact legally
actionable, he may well be attempting to distance himself from the
posts he has made here as All Bad. Unfortunately, this is a not a

AB: The argument that Azal is paid by the IRI is a far more likely
explanation for his activities, than what it foiled for, the baseless
allegation that Paul Hammond, Susan Maneck, Mark Foster and others are paid
by the AO to propagandize on the internet. Azal at least spouts the party
line on the bahooooveyeyeys.

MIA1: winning situation, as denying his identity as All Bad not only raises

AB: Bill, you are maligning me in ways I thought were impossible. I don't
confirm any real identity, but on TRB, I am All Bad.

MIA1: the previous issues of fraudulent posting activity by a key Baha'i


member of this board, but further establishes collusion amongst other
members of the board such as yourself, Paul. Consequently, the

AB: So, this is all an elaborate windup about Azal's multiple handles, and
email addresses and the Hidden_Treasure meat puppet. So, you are showing a
sense of humor, now, to distance yourself from the Imperial Hazini?

MIA1: existence of the internet committee you keep denying looks more

likely
by the day, and at the very least, these factors raise SERIOUS
questions about the activities of All Bad/Pat Kohli and any other
related posters.

AB: Don't drink and post. It comes out sideways.

AB: What about the libeling?

- All Bad


All Bad

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 10:25:26 PM3/7/09
to

"Aor" <hura...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b2b0c77-369e-46c2...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 8, 10:29 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 23:48, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
(snip)

>
> > > > AB: His usual hypocritical projectionist kwap. I wonder of the Daime
> > > > makes
> > > > it worse?
>
> > > > - All Bad
>
> > > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > > the
> > > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > > you
> > > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > > trusts
> > > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > > out
> > > opinion.
>
> > > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > > he
> > > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>
> > > AB: Nobody at my house drinks Daime. I did see the movie "Altered
> > > States"
(snip)

>
> > > organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him for
> > > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but
> > > I
> > > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> > Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> > thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
> > people posting from your account, and you've been posting under false
> > names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
> > makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> Interesting move, May.- Hide quoted text -

WA: Very interesting indeed, and one you don't have a hope to answer.

AB: Get your tomahawk out. You don't want to miss out on some more
scalping!

- All Bad

W


maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 7, 2009, 10:43:07 PM3/7/09
to
On Mar 8, 12:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I'm talking about you attempting to caste doubt on your identity as
Pat Kohli. You've answered questions as Pat Kohli, so again, either
you are Pat Kohli, you aren't Pat Kohli (which is serious in itself),
or there is more than one person posting from your handle 'All Bad'.
All of the above represent separate, yet equally tricky scenarios for
you.

>
> MIA1:  names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and actually
>
> AB:  What is your name?
>
> MIA1:  makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> AB:  Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
> maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.
>
> > Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> > - All Bad
>
> >http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> MIA1:  It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should be
>
> AB:  What organization might that be?  In the context of Daime, I do not
> represent the DEA.
>
> MIA1:  able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
> such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
>
> AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused.  I'll spell it out for you though.
> In this context, TRB, I represent no organization.  Rather emphatically, on
> TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.
>
> MIA1:  from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
>
> AB:  What individual would that be?  

This individual here, and the organization he represents:

http://www.aurorabaha.org/firealtar

The Keeper of the Fire Altar is Francis Siete Truenos, a mestiso
(Basque, Taino & Lebanese) Curandero and Vegetalista born in what is
today the Dominican Republic (Quisqueya/Hispaniola).

> Where do they live?  What have they
> done?  It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
> the Dawning Place of the Praise of God.  At first glance, this looks really
> great.  HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
> Williamette?  I did, several times.

So you don't see any possible confusion with the use of Baha'i symbols
and terminology? How then could you support a case against the
Orthodox Baha'is? Furthermore, if the sentiments and activities
detailed on this site appear agreeable to you (including the
sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.

>
> MIA1:  They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised in
>
> AB:  The NSA?  You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> misrepresenting their pace.  About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> Baha'is.  Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> Heterodox Baha'i.  I really had no idea what he was talking about.  They
> cause confusion.  20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about it
> other than ignoring it.

Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
alcohol and 'drug' use?

>
> MIA1:  the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
> Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
>
> AB:  I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
> SI.
>
> MIA1:  are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
> United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
> individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
> especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
>
> AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do.  I suggest you
> take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
> interested in.
>
> MIA1:  context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
> employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
>
> AB:  The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
> Dallas Cowboys.  Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
> similar to the ring symbol.  It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
> an expert in these matters.

The symbol used here is the Baha'i Greatest Name, not the five pointed
star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of
the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.
http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

> MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
> the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> AB:  Yeah.  I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence.  In the discussion he just
> bounces past it as an allegedly known fact.  You were a party to the UAV
> expertise thing.  You have no comment, I see.

>
> AB:  Let me further break it down in the context of you and me.  Neither you
> nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> TRB.  Yet you presume a name and organization of me.  I know why that is.

I presume that name because you have answered questions directed
towards Pat Kohli as Pat Kohli.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d

So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a
level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.

>
> AB:  Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
> told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
> internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money, in
> addition to Mark Foster.  Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
> Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years.  Before you believed it,
> an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you believe
> that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
> the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
> you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
> representative of the UHJ.  That is ridiculous.  If you believe that I am
> with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
> your own gullibility.  Azal is the libeler.  He lied about my role in the
> Gaza war.  He's lied about a lot of other things.  You are backing a
> propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it.  Are you oblivious?  Are you
> simply misled?  You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
> Azal.
>
> - All Bad

You should know by now that I see through your attempts to caste Wahid
Azal in a particular light, and to curb my criticism of the Haifan
Baha'i organization by employing the tactics you do. You'll probably
disagree as you have above, but I have a good eye for these things and
can clearly perceive certain things for myself. Right now, your
attempts to distance yourself from your online identity are failing
miserably, and have now created some very serious problems.

All Bad

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 7:53:54 AM3/8/09
to

Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to Sourcewatch.org.
There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB. This is TRB.
Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB? Has W shown you examples
of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bada9ecd-effc-449f...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


On Mar 8, 12:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a679c0b5-bcc1-43b2...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 8:56 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
(snip)
>

> > AB: Hey, Bill Ayers, do you agree with W that someone who is allegedly
> > the
> > subject of a SourceWatch.org article should not discuss the article w/
> > SourceWatch.org editors, lest they lose something? I'm just asking if
> > you
> > are as whacked out as him, because I think he trusts you more than he
> > trusts
> > me and you might have some luck in talking him down from that whacked
> > out
> > opinion.
>
> > MIA1: Maybe you should ask your own resident Baha'i Daime drinker what
> > he
> > thinks of the issue? You know, the one who has crafted an extensive
>

AB: Note: I addressed you as Bill Ayers. You answered. This does not
make you Bill Ayers, as far as I am concerned. Does this make you Bill
Ayers as far as you are concerned? It looks to me like you are saying it
would. Be consistent.
>
(snip)


>
>
> > MIA1: 'covenant' document using the names and symbology of the Baha'i
>
> > AB: Doesn't look like he comes to TRB much, or post his claims here that
> > Daime is good.
>

> > MIA1: organization? Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him

> > for
> > trademark infringement I wonder?
>
> > AB: I don't know. Why do you ask me? I might not tell you my name, but I
> > will tell you, I am not the UHJ.
>
> MIA1: Well, Viv's already just called you by your name (Pat) in another
> thread, so why would you need to tell me? Unless there's also multiple
>
> AB: I felt it might be constructive to inform you that I am not the UHJ
> since it seemed to me that you were communicating to me a question for the
> UHJ, "Why isn't the UHJ pursuing legal action against him" In plain
> English, "I would not know". I would not know because I am not the UHJ.
> Hey, if you are drinking that stuff, too, please don't drink and post.
>
> MIA1: people posting from your account, and you've been posting under
> false
>
> AB: What are you talking about now?

MIA1: I'm talking about you attempting to caste doubt on your identity as
Pat Kohli.

AB: Nonsense. I sign off my messages as All Bad. I'm not claiming to be
Pat Kohli. The fact that I respond when I believe I am being addressed is
nothing more than what you do when I address you as Bill Ayers.

MIA1: You've answered questions as Pat Kohli, so again, either


you are Pat Kohli, you aren't Pat Kohli (which is serious in itself),

AB: You are not Bill Ayers, yet you answer questions addressed to him.
This is usenet, not email. Everyone can read and anyone can right, given
internet connectivity and software and no concerns on quality.

MIA1: or there is more than one person posting from your handle 'All Bad'.


All of the above represent separate, yet equally tricky scenarios for
you.

>
> MIA1: names, which in itself proves another interesting point, and
> actually
>
> AB: What is your name?
>
> MIA1: makes things even more complicated for you.
>
> AB: Sez you and you don't know what both "obvious" and "resident" mean,
> maybe one, maybe none, but obviously not both.
>
> > Ask them your questions yourself.
>
> > - All Bad
>
> >http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> MIA1: It's the organization you represent in this context, so you should
> be
>
> AB: What organization might that be? In the context of Daime, I do not
> represent the DEA.
>
> MIA1: able to provide some leading information as to their opinion about
> such things. It's very strange. Where are the letters or statements
>
> AB: Perhaps you are profoundly confused. I'll spell it out for you though.
> In this context, TRB, I represent no organization. Rather emphatically, on
> TRB, I don't even represent myself, whoever that may be.
>
> MIA1: from the UHJ or the NSA distancing themselves from this individual?
>
> AB: What individual would that be?

MIA1: This individual here, and the organization he represents:

http://www.aurorabaha.org/firealtar

MIA1: The Keeper of the Fire Altar is Francis Siete Truenos, a mestiso


(Basque, Taino & Lebanese) Curandero and Vegetalista born in what is
today the Dominican Republic (Quisqueya/Hispaniola).

AB: This is where A-Rod;s cousin gets the juice. Does he still live there?

> Where do they live? What have they
> done? It just looks to me like someone w/ a cool website and a society for
> the Dawning Place of the Praise of God. At first glance, this looks really
> great. HAve you been to the Dawning Place of the Praise of God, in
> Williamette? I did, several times.

MIA1: So you don't see any possible confusion with the use of Baha'i symbols


and terminology? How then could you support a case against the

AB: I'm sure someone could get confused. I have no serious opinion on the
viability of litigation or the need of it.

MIA1: Orthodox Baha'is? Furthermore, if the sentiments and activities

AB: I post on TRB. I don't claim to determine legal strategy; that would
be something Wahid would do.

MIA1: detailed on this site appear agreeable to you (including the

AB: You referred me to the covenant page and I looked at. I did not look at
the site, or I might have seen what's his names bio.

MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's


advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.

AB: Wahid says he took Daime. Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca. I
don't make this up, like a certain user of hallucinogens.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2

>
> MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> in
>
> AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> it
> other than ignoring it.

MIA1: Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,


this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable

AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli. Clearly, I am posting as
All Bad. You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not posting
as Bill Ayers.

MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,


then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still

AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.

MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support


the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given

AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web page
that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.

MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly


identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
alcohol and 'drug' use?

>
> MIA1: the press, through such mediums as letters to the editor (ie. the
> Solomon Islands case). But with this issue, such letters/statements
>
> AB: I'd suspect different NSAs are concerned, unless Aurora Baha is in the
> SI.
>
> MIA1: are conspicuously absent. It would seem that if the UHJ/NSA of the
> United States or Mexico wished to distance themselves from this
> individual, they would have publicly released material to that effect,
> especially since the article on this person appeared in so prominent a
>
> AB: Obviously you follow this much more closely than I do. I suggest you
> take your questions to the organazations whose perspectives you are
> interested in.
>
> MIA1: context as the Los Angeles Times. Given that Aurora Baha not only
> employs the Baha'i symbol, claims membership of a Baha'i commonwealth,
>
> AB: The Baha'i symbol is a five pointed star, just like the symbol of the
> Dallas Cowboys. Aurora Baha has a two five pointed stars, in something
> similar to the ring symbol. It might cause confusion to some, but I am not
> an expert in these matters.

MIA1: The symbol used here is the Baha'i Greatest Name, not the five pointed

AB: That that would be "the Greatest Name symbol". The five pointed star
remains the symbol of the Baha'i Faith, regardless of whether or not this is
well known.
http://altreligion.about.com/od/symbols/ig/Baha-i-Faith-Symbol-Gallery/Five-Pointed-Star.htm

MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of


the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.
http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.

> MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> to
> the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> AB: Yeah. I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence. In the discussion he just
> bounces past it as an allegedly known fact. You were a party to the UAV
> expertise thing. You have no comment, I see.

AB: You still avoid commenting on the libel, a thing you've even been party
to. Why is that?

>
> AB: Let me further break it down in the context of you and me. Neither you
> nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> TRB. Yet you presume a name and organization of me. I know why that is.

MIA1: I presume that name because you have answered questions directed

MIA1: So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a


level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.

AB: Yet I don't presume you are the terrorist Bill Ayers, even though you
would pass by the test of answering questions put to that name.

>
> AB: Years ago, Nima (before he was W. Azal) claimed that Mark Foster had
> told him that the AO paid Bahai's up to $10K per year to be active on the
> internet, naming Pat Kohli and Susan Maneck as recipients of this money,
> in
> addition to Mark Foster. Though Foster denied this happened, Nima and now
> Azal has repeated this blatant falsehood for years. Before you believed
> it,
> an least one other contributor on TRB seemed to believe it. Now you
> believe
> that you can just talk to some anonymous person on TRB, and they represent
> the UHJ, or you can talk to someone who is not even a Baha'i, and because
> you mistakenly believe Azal's lie, you assume you are talking to a
> representative of the UHJ. That is ridiculous. If you believe that I am
> with a Baha'i IT committee, as Azal says, you are mislead, and a victim of
> your own gullibility. Azal is the libeler. He lied about my role in the
> Gaza war. He's lied about a lot of other things. You are backing a
> propagandist, and you seem oblivious to it. Are you oblivious? Are you
> simply misled? You won't be the first person, nor the last one duped by
> Azal.
>
> - All Bad

MIA1: You should know by now that I see through your attempts to caste Wahid


Azal in a particular light, and to curb my criticism of the Haifan

AB: Walk by the light of his deceptions for as long as you like. He posted
on Sourcewatch that All Bad/Pat Kohli libels on Sourcewatch. You've seen
him libel me with his outrageous accusations such as war crimes for going on
vacation. You can remain a party to this disinformation for as long as you
choose. You are not the first and won't be the last one he has drawn in to
his twisted view of things.

MIA1: Baha'i organization by employing the tactics you do. You'll probably

AB: Please do feel free to criticize the Baha'i organization. Please share
your experiences, frustrations and disapointments. All I would ask is that
you keep it real. Posting the harebrained results of internet searches will
be questioned.

MIA1: disagree as you have above, but I have a good eye for these things and

AB: Patently you are in no position to give yourself a meaningful vision
test since you only see what you see.

MIA1: can clearly perceive certain things for myself. Right now, your


attempts to distance yourself from your online identity are failing
miserably, and have now created some very serious problems.

AB: The thread was started to discuss the charges on Sourcewatch of me or
Pat Kohli libeling. Either you can see that for yourself, or you can't.
You've been around on TRB for a few months. Either you have or have not
seen me libeling. This is a time and place to say so.

AB: You want to discuss whether I am or am not Pat Kohli, w/ no concession
of who you are, or what you represent By every standard you pose where I
could be Pat Kohli (I respond when called that), you are Bill Ayers, and yet
you know you are not Bill Ayers. How can you possibly know I am Pat Kohli,
then? You apply different standards for yourself than you do for me. I
think I know why you do that. I think you already believe that I am part of
some malicious, propagandizing committee. Can you see how I might suspect
that same of you? It would explain your double standards. Is it so? Are
you part of some malicious propaganda campaign? If not, how would I know
that?

AB: BTW, Paul Hammond is not a Baha'i, even though he is also alleged to be
part of the Baha'i black ops internet team. If there were a covert team, it
would be most unlikely a Baha'i organisation would recruit a non-Baha'i.

- All Bad


paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 3:43:43 PM3/8/09
to
> W-

I already answered it, Fuck the British.

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 3:48:24 PM3/8/09
to
> the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the UHJ/NSA? Something doesn't add up.
>
> > AB:  Yeah.  I was discussing how W. Azal accused Pat Kohli of libel on
> > Sourcewatch.org and provided not evidence.  In the discussion he just
> > bounces past it as an allegedly known fact.  You were a party to the UAV
> > expertise thing.  You have no comment, I see.
>
> > AB:  Let me further break it down in the context of you and me.  Neither you
> > nor me has a name or represents an organization in our virtual presence on
> > TRB.  Yet you presume a name and organization of me.  I know why that is.
>
> I presume that name because you have answered questions directed
> towards Pat Kohli as Pat Kohli.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/74f1a7c95521532d

>
> So, once again, either you are Pat Kohli, or you are committing a
> level of identity fraud. Not good for you either way.
>
>


So, May, who is it that you are again?

Paul

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 8:14:43 PM3/8/09
to
On Mar 8, 9:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:

> Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to Sourcewatch.org.
> There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB.  This is TRB.
> Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB?  Has W shown you examples
> of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?
>

No, that's not how it works. You may have addressed me as Bill Ayers
(and have also admitted that you don't actually think I'm Bill Ayers
anyway and are just making a point), and I may have answered the post,
but I did not provide an answer in the first person with personal
information that was congruent with Bill Ayers' personal information,
thus constituting the impression that I was replying as that identity.
You, on the other hand, have done just that. You have been addressed
as Pat Kohli, and have answered to the presentation of personal
information about yourself/Pat Kohli in the FIRST PERSON, and have
made no prior efforts to deny that identity. Now things are getting
difficult for you, you are attempting to disavow the identity of Pat
Kohli, which is in itself very telling.

So you deemed it useful to comment on this page without having
gathered all the facts?

>
> MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
> advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
> is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
>
> AB:  Wahid says he took Daime.  Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca.

Wahid has never made claims regarding the distribution of Ayahuasca.
That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in
your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.

> don't make this up, like a certain user of hallucinogens.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2


>
>
>
> > MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> > in
>
> > AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> > misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I enrolled,
> > the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> > Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> > Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> > cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> > it
> > other than ignoring it.
>
> MIA1:  Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
> this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
> fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
>
> AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli.  Clearly, I am posting as
> All Bad.  You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not posting
> as Bill Ayers.

You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.

> well known.http://altreligion.about.com/od/symbols/ig/Baha-i-Faith-Symbol-Galler...


>
> MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants of

> the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant


>
> AB:  Okay, so sue them.  My opinion is completely irrelevant.  I'm not a
> lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.

No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to remain consistent in their
targeting of parties using the name Baha'i.

>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> > to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the
>

> ...
>
> read more »

Once more, you have answered questions addressed to Pat Kohli as Pat
Kohli, providing information in the first person tense. Other posters,
such as Viv, have referred to you as Pat in their posts, and you have
not corrected them on this issue. So the fact remains that for all
intents and purposes, you have answered for the identity of Pat Kohli
whilst posting under the user handle All Bad. Not looking good.

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 8:16:08 PM3/8/09
to

Probably a bit of a headache for you right now.

PaulHammond

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 8:44:11 PM3/8/09
to

maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry?

YOu are "a bit of a headache"?

That's what it says on your birth certificate?

What an odd answer for an anonymous person who is demanding to know
the truth of another persons internet identity to give?

Paul

All Bad

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:04:52 PM3/8/09
to
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a974fda-b3bb-4c4e...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 8, 9:53 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> Maybe you missed this, but W has been posting this link to
> Sourcewatch.org.
> There he accuses All Bad/Pat Kohli of libeling people on TRB. This is TRB.
> Do you see examples of me libeling people on TRB? Has W shown you examples
> of Pat Kohli, who has posted here in the past, libeling people on TRB?
>

AB: I noticed you passed on this question. So, you do agree that he not
only libels, but he's gotten you to go along, like the UAV thing?

MIA1: No, that's not how it works. You may have addressed me as Bill Ayers


(and have also admitted that you don't actually think I'm Bill Ayers
anyway and are just making a point), and I may have answered the post,
but I did not provide an answer in the first person with personal
information that was congruent with Bill Ayers' personal information,
thus constituting the impression that I was replying as that identity.
You, on the other hand, have done just that. You have been addressed
as Pat Kohli, and have answered to the presentation of personal
information about yourself/Pat Kohli in the FIRST PERSON, and have
made no prior efforts to deny that identity. Now things are getting
difficult for you, you are attempting to disavow the identity of Pat
Kohli, which is in itself very telling.
>

AB: Clearly you are working some distinctions that are far to subtle for me
to follow. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of "The Looking Glass", and when
I hear you rationally say, "words mean what we mean them to mean" I
understand that as utter goobledygook that implies _meaningful_ discussion
with you is pointless, since you can't mean just what said, you only mean
what you meant and you might not have meant that at all.

(snip)

MIA1: So you deemed it useful to comment on this page without having
gathered all the facts?

AB: I thought I was being asked to comment on the page. Are you just as
dodgy with your questions as you are with your statements? I did not look
at the site, just the covenant page. If you don't follow your own
questions, don't expect me to be patient with your confusion.

>
> MIA1: sacramental use of Ayahuasca), then your comments regarding Wahid's
> advocation of the use of a particular entheogen (which he has stated
> is not necessarily the same Daime anyway), are null and void.
>
> AB: Wahid says he took Daime. Wahid says he distributes Ayahuasca.

MIA1: Wahid has never made claims regarding the distribution of Ayahuasca.

AB: He is the co-head of an Ayahuasca Sufi Order, two great tastes from
different religious continuums.
http://www.punchkids.net/2007/03/20/wahid-azal/ Do you suppose someone else
wrote that one for him? His order is called, "Fatimiya Sufi Order" and he
says that they don't charge for the tea.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/ce8e206701a8d47f I
seem to recall him telling me that it was not completely illegal in
Australia (Oz) and that he even put together a defense strategy for someone
accused of possession.

AB: BTW, I can now see someone using the name "Pat Kohli" in their handle.
It is W and he has my handle in there, too.

MIA1: That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in


your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.

AB: Someone other than mash or me wrote, "In recent years Wahid Azal has
become an advocate for the use of the Amazonian psychoactive tea known as
Ayahuasca." It looks like something Sourcewatch.org would take as a
reference, press-release grade material. A lot of the handles in this link
are Wahid's: Abraxas, AHWA, Baha'u'llah, Azal, Freethought, possibly Abdl
Azazel, 383,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/search?group=talk.religion.bahai&q=Ayahuasca&qt_g=Search+this+group

AB: Right here on TRB he defended his order's distribution of this powerful
healing medicine, almost clearly legal, blah blah blah, but you say he has
never made any claims about distribution of Ayahuasca. Is it illegal again?
I thought I tried to tell him that.

> don't make this up, like a certain user of
> hallucinogens.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1e49246d501885d2
>
>
>
> > MIA1: They have appeared VERY quickly in relation to other issues raised
> > in
>
> > AB: The NSA? You are profoundly confused, again, or deliberately
> > misrepresenting their pace. About 20 years ago, shortly after I
> > enrolled,
> > the OBFUSA put an advertisement in the paper addressed to the Heterodox
> > Baha'is. Someone who knew I had recently enrolled asked me if I were a
> > Heterodox Baha'i. I really had no idea what he was talking about. They
> > cause confusion. 20 years later maybe the NSA is doing _something_ about
> > it
> > other than ignoring it.
>
> MIA1: Thanks for the history. If you now claim that you are not Pat Kohli,
> this confirms that an enrolled member of the Baha'i faith has been
> fraudulently posting as Pat Kohli. This would constitute an actionable
>
> AB: I don't see anyone here posting as Pat Kohli. Clearly, I am posting as
> All Bad. You are posting as MaybeIamOne or MaybeIAm101; you are not
> posting
> as Bill Ayers.

MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving


numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.

AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.

>
> MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
> then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
>
> AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.
>
> MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
> the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
>
> AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web
> page
> that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
> opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
> have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.
>
> MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
> identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
> organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
> alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
>
>
>
>

(snip)


>
> MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants
> of
> the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty
> clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
> lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.

MIA1: No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to remain consistent in their


targeting of parties using the name Baha'i.

AB: I don't think you should make up jobs for the UHJ w/o telling them. My
superficial impression of the recent lawsuit was that the US NSA was the
plaintiff. Now you seem to be saying it was the UHJ, was I mistaken, or is
this another example of your Queen of Hearts dictionary at work?

>
> > MIA1: but also practices the ritual use of an entheogen in contradiction
> > to
> > the Haifan Baha'is own policy on 'drug use', you would think that some
> > legal action akin to that taken against the Orthodox Baha'is might
> > ensue? Or at the very least, some kind of public rejection of his
> > membership to the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

MIA1: Once more, you have answered questions addressed to Pat Kohli as Pat

AB: Another one, Bill Ayers? Where was the first question to Pat Kohli
that I answered as Pat Kohli? Where was the second one? I thought you were
asking me questions. I'm sorry for butting in. Could you hold your breath
while Pat answers the questions you put to him?

MIA1: Kohli, providing information in the first person tense. Other

posters,
such as Viv, have referred to you as Pat in their posts, and you have

AB: I don't see malice w/ Viv or Paul. I don't see projectile confusion on
'obvious' and 'resident', or 'page' vs 'site'. These are mistakes that you
make and push on me.

MIA1: not corrected them on this issue. So the fact remains that for all


intents and purposes, you have answered for the identity of Pat Kohli
whilst posting under the user handle All Bad. Not looking good.

AB: And your name is something other than Bill Ayers? What about the
libel?

- All Bad


All Bad

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:07:29 PM3/8/09
to
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56e3d2ad-d1ee-42d4...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 9, 5:48 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
(snip)

> So, May, who is it that you are again?
>
> Paul

MIA1: Probably a bit of a headache for you right now.

AB: Maybe a meat puppet for Fuck.

- All Bad


Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:11:36 PM3/8/09
to
> related posters.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:11:54 PM3/8/09
to
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

PaulHammond

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:22:26 PM3/8/09
to

You seem to be having some problems responding to this post,
FucktheBahais.

A long quote ending in confusion, and no words from yourself - what's
that about?

All Bad

unread,
Mar 8, 2009, 9:39:55 PM3/8/09
to

"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e101c078-d475-43a6...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

(nothing added)

So, did you have any examples of libel to share, or did you just want to
wave your imperial arm and say, "It is a well known fact that whatever I say
must be so, and is not to be questioned"? You do that so marvelously.

- All Bad


Death to Haifan Bahaism

unread,
Mar 9, 2009, 2:26:31 AM3/9/09
to

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 3:30:37 AM3/10/09
to
On Mar 9, 11:04 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> different religious continuums.http://www.punchkids.net/2007/03/20/wahid-azal/ Do you suppose someone else

> wrote that one for him?  His order is called, "Fatimiya Sufi Order" and he
> says that they don't charge for the tea.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/ce8e206701a8d47fI
> seem to recall him telling me that it was not completely illegal in
> Australia (Oz) and that he even put together a defense strategy for someone
> accused of possession.
>
> AB:  BTW, I can now see someone using the name "Pat Kohli" in their handle.
> It is W and he has my handle in there, too.
>
> MIA1: That's the claim you and mash_ghasem have tried to make against him in
> your utterly false 'drug dealing' claims.
>
> AB:  Someone other than mash or me wrote, "In recent years Wahid Azal has
> become an advocate for the use of the Amazonian psychoactive tea known as
> Ayahuasca."  It looks like something Sourcewatch.org would take as a
> reference, press-release grade material.  A lot of the handles in this link
> are Wahid's:  Abraxas, AHWA, Baha'u'llah, Azal, Freethought, possibly Abdl
> Azazel, 383,http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/search?group=talk....

And you answer in the first person questions directed towards Pat
Kohli?

And why did you answer this thread regarding Pat Kohli in the first
person if you are not him?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/9a33322701a865c4

Has Pat Kohli been spear-fishing in E. Australia lately?


All Bad
View profile
More options Jan 2, 11:10 pm
Just because you did it does not mean I would.
- All Bad
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:29401699-5b81-4af8-
b3b6-364...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...


- Hide quoted text -

> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5241178/man-accidentally-spears-g...
> Man accidentally spears own groin
> ABC - January 2, 2009, 9:45 am
> A man who speared himself in the groin on the Sunshine Coast in south-
> east Queensland is recovering from his ordeal in hospital.
> The 25-year-old man was spear fishing on rocks near Coolum yesterday
> afternoon when he was hit by a wave.
> He fell onto the loaded gun and a two-metre spear pierced his groin.
> He was flown to the Nambour Hospital where he had emergency surgery to
> remove it.
> He remains in a stable condition.


To me, it appears that you've suddenly become quite uncomfortable with
your posting history as All Bad. I wonder why that would be?

Now, you've made a statement that you're not Pat Kohli here:


MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli,
giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.

AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.

Think wisely now, Pat. If you are Pat Kohli, you've just proven how
enormously deceitful you are, and that you are now spinning a bald
faced lie to get out of certain statements you've made on this board.
If you are not Pat Kohli, you've just proven what a fraud you are,
especially considering that when other posters on this board, such as
Paul and Viv, have referred to you by the name Pat, you have made no
efforts to correct them. This certainly suggests knowing collusion on
their part. And I'd forget trying to qualify the above statement
regarding 'living in the same neighborhood' as Pat Kohli, by saying
that still means you may or may not be him. You are clearly suggesting
in this statement that All Bad and Pat Kohli are separate people.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MIA1: offense. By the way, if the Heterdox Baha'i name causes confusion,
> > then surely Aurora Baha is causing confusion too (unless you still
>
> > AB: Aurora Baha does not post on TRB, not that I can see.
>
> > MIA1: think what he's doing looks great), and you would therefore support
> > the NSA taking action to clear up this confusion? Especially given
>
> > AB: I really don't know what you are talking about. I glanced at a web
> > page
> > that you asked me to look at. I answered your question as best I could. My
> > opinion on the viability of lawsuits against this guy is meaningless. I
> > have nothing more than a superficial interest or knowledge.
>
> > MIA1: that it may be confusing for many Baha'i's to have a publicly
> > identified Ayahuasca drinker clearly associated with their
> > organization when the Haifan Baha'i body categorically prohibits
> > alcohol and 'drug' use?
>
> (snip)
>
> > MIA1: star. The sentence employed is "We the people of Baha, inhabitants
> > of
> > the Ark of God, and the Baha'i Commonwealth." Pretty
> > clear.http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant
>
> > AB: Okay, so sue them. My opinion is completely irrelevant. I'm not a
> > lawyer and I have not studied them as well as you.
>

> MIA1: No, that's the UHJ's job if they are to ...
>
> read more »

All Bad

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 6:46:25 AM3/10/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8245dc5d-728f-4b1b...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 9, 11:04 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
(snip)

>
> MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli, giving
> numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
> history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
> time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
> of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
> activities on this board don't look any better.
>
> AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.

MIA1: And you answer in the first person questions directed towards Pat
Kohli?

AB: Bill, we've been through this. You are not Bill Ayers and you answer
questions addressed to Bill Ayers.

MIA1: And why did you answer this thread regarding Pat Kohli in the first


person if you are not him?

AB: W grabbed a news clipping about a man spear fishing in East Oz (where
he lives) and said it was Pat Kohli. Let me decode that for you. Nobody -
nobody but maybe W and now maybe you, because you two might be capable of
swallowing W's lies whole - would believe that W really thought that might
be Pat Kohl. It was just wishful thinking and obnoxiousness on W's part.

AB: How old are you, that you need a translator on this kind of stuff?
Were you home schooled, or just haven't been to third grade, yet, where this
kind of thing comes up?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/9a33322701a865c4

Has Pat Kohli been spear-fishing in E. Australia lately?


All Bad
View profile
More options Jan 2, 11:10 pm
Just because you did it does not mean I would.
- All Bad
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:29401699-5b81-4af8-
b3b6-364...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -

> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5241178/man-accidentally-spears-g...
> Man accidentally spears own groin
> ABC - January 2, 2009, 9:45 am
> A man who speared himself in the groin on the Sunshine Coast in south-
> east Queensland is recovering from his ordeal in hospital.
> The 25-year-old man was spear fishing on rocks near Coolum yesterday
> afternoon when he was hit by a wave.
> He fell onto the loaded gun and a two-metre spear pierced his groin.
> He was flown to the Nambour Hospital where he had emergency surgery to
> remove it.
> He remains in a stable condition.


MIA1: To me, it appears that you've suddenly become quite uncomfortable

with
your posting history as All Bad.

AB: I don't feel uncomfortable. Why do you say I'm uncomfortable?

MIA1: I wonder why that would be?

AB: Because you jump to conclusions. I might ask why you jump to
conclusions, but I really don't care. I might ask if your parents know what
you are doing on the computer, but, again, I really don't care.

MIA1: Now, you've made a statement that you're not Pat Kohli here:

AB: You don't say who you are or are not. Maybe it was one of your parents
conditions before playing on the internet. Maybe I am eight years old, too,
and I'm not allowed to discuss my personal life on the internet, either? I
don't think I'm saying if I am or am not Pat Kohli. I'm asking about
libeling. W has libeled and I don't see that I have.

MIA1: You've answered personal questions addressed to Pat Kohli,
giving
numerous specific details relating to Pat Kohli's life and employment
history, using the first person tense, and making no denials at the
time that this was your identity. That either makes you him or guilty
of long standing identity fraud. If you're not Pat Kohli, your
activities on this board don't look any better.

AB: I live in the same neighborhood. It is a small world.

MIA1: Think wisely now, Pat. If you are Pat Kohli, you've just proven how

AB: I don't see that, Bill. Maybe you are deceitful, getting fixated and
obnoxious w/ someone who won't give up their real world name. From my
perspective, it reflects a lot about you. You don't give up yours and you
demand I give up mine. That is hypocricsy. As long as I play my game, I am
just nobody and you are a rather obvious hypocrite. I don't see why I
should change my game. I'm not the one who is so obviously a hypocrite,
Bill.

MIA1: enormously deceitful you are, and that you are now spinning a bald


faced lie to get out of certain statements you've made on this board.

AB: Not at all. You are simply dodging the question of who on TRB is
libeling. W is the libeler and now he is even libeling on Sourcewatch.

MIA1: If you are not Pat Kohli, you've just proven what a fraud you are,

AB: Who is a fraud if I'm not Pat Kohli?

MIA1: especially considering that when other posters on this board, such as


Paul and Viv, have referred to you by the name Pat, you have made no

AB: And they don't look like hypocrites since not only are they not
hounding me about my identity, but they've given up their actual names for
all to know.

MIA1: efforts to correct them. This certainly suggests knowing collusion on

AB: Your suggestion of collustion is a suggestion of Wesque paranoia. W
suggested that people were colluding with Sourwatdh.org editors to question
his libel charge.

MIA1: their part. And I'd forget trying to qualify the above statement


regarding 'living in the same neighborhood' as Pat Kohli, by saying
that still means you may or may not be him. You are clearly suggesting
in this statement that All Bad and Pat Kohli are separate people.

AB: That was not my intention at all. I just wanted to say I know Pat
Kohli. He lives in the same area that I do.

- All Bad


PaulHammond

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 2:19:45 PM3/10/09
to

maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:

May, I have a question for you.

Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
anonymously?

If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
here, then who are you?

You really can't have this one both ways.

Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.

you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.

Paul

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 10:05:58 PM3/10/09
to

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 10, 2009, 10:08:26 PM3/10/09
to
On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

> Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> anonymously?

I have a better question. Do you think it's right for people to post
in this or any other forum using names that aren't legitimately
there's, like you, for example, and your fictitious Paul Hammond
persona - which is not your real name - or Pat using the name Owen on
SW and duplicitously claiming he isn't Pat Kohli here?

W

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 11, 2009, 12:00:09 AM3/11/09
to
On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

Doesn't work that way, Paul. It's a question of having answered
certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
of that online identity. Pat made the choice NOT to post anonymously,
NOT TO CLEARLY CORRECT any misleading statements made by, or addressed
to his identity (such as referring to him as Pat), and has attempted
to cast doubt upon wether prior statements he has made as 'All Bad' in
the first person were made by him or by someone else. As I have
suggested before, if the handle All Bad is clearly associated with
Pat, he is either clearly responsible for all those posts AS AN
ESTABLISHED IDENTITY, or there are multiple people using that handle
and posting on his behalf. I know how you're trying to play this one.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>

>
> You really can't have this one both ways.

You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.

>
> Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.

So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
about much more than just making a point. I wonder, if Pat was just
making a point, once the point is made, will he be reverting back to a
clearly identifiable online presence as Pat Kohli/All Bad?


>
> you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.

Sure I am, Paul.
>
> Paul

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 11, 2009, 9:28:02 PM3/11/09
to
On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > anonymously?
>
> > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > here, then who are you?
>
> Doesn't work that way, Paul.

Does it not? Why not?

> It's a question of having answered
> certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> either  taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> of that online identity.

Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?

Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
about why you've been libelling him?

>. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>

You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?

>
>
> > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>

Oh right. So it's YOU who makes the rules is it? One way for you,
and another way for Pat?

Isn't that known as hypocrisy?

>
> > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> about much more than just making a point.

You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?


>
> > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> Sure I am, Paul.
>

You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?

Paul

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 11, 2009, 9:29:04 PM3/11/09
to
On 11 Mar, 02:08, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > anonymously?
>
> I have a better question. Do you think it's right for people to post
> in this or any other forum using names that aren't legitimately
> there's, like you, for example, and your fictitious Paul Hammond

have you seen my birth certificate, Nima?

Who are you telling me I am this week, Nima? Shall I be Bill
Garlington again?

Paul

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 11, 2009, 10:10:11 PM3/11/09
to
On Mar 12, 11:29 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

> have you seen my birth certificate, Nima?

No, show it to us...Scan it and put it online for everyone to see it,
just like these declassified British cabinets documents here proving
British/Bahaim collusion and espionage,
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home


> Who are you telling me I am this week, Nima?  Shall I be Bill
> Garlington again?

You tell us who you are, first, by showing us your birth certificate,
a copy of your National ID or driver's license (if you have one), a
passport and further corrborative information about yourself, before
we tell you who you are.

W

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 11, 2009, 10:13:14 PM3/11/09
to
On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

> You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?

You sure are, Paul - or is that your name at all?

W

BAHAISM AND THE BRITISH,
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home


Also see, especially,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)


http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf


&


http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini


...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part, the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai activities
as camouflage)...


Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 3:59:19 AM3/12/09
to
On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not?  Why not?
>
> >  It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either  taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?
>
> >. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> > It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
> You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?

It's called being predictable. Almost robotically so. You know, like
the robots in all those sci-fi programs you like so much?


>
>
>
> > > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> > You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
> Oh right.  So it's YOU who makes the rules is it?  One way for you,
> and another way for Pat?

And you wonder why I would tell you that I can perceive your methods.

>
> Isn't that known as hypocrisy?
>

There you go again, imagining you would be an arbiter of such things.


>
>
> > > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> > So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> > about much more than just making a point.
>
> You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?

Birds of a feather.

>
>
>
> > > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> > Sure I am, Paul.
>
> You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
>
> Paul

How about pulling out that birth certificate, Paul?

maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 4:02:44 AM3/12/09
to
On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not?  Why not?
>
> >  It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either  taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?

Where was it that I was libeling him again? Think carefully now.

All Bad

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 6:34:32 AM3/12/09
to

<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdabbc1a-9104-46db...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > anonymously?
>
> > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > here, then who are you?
>
> > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> Does it not? Why not?
>
> > It's a question of having answered
> > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > either taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > of that online identity.
>
> Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> about why you've been libelling him?

MIA1: Where was it that I was libeling him again? Think carefully now.

AB: So, you do admit to libeling him previously. That is a start.

AB: Oh, that is not what you meant? Back to square zero!

- All Bad


maybe...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 7:05:28 AM3/12/09
to
On Mar 12, 8:34 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

What are you on, Pat? That's a really weak ploy. Oh well, keep
trying.

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 1:49:57 PM3/12/09
to
On 12 Mar, 07:59, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:28 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Mar, 04:00, maybeiam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 4:19 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > May, I have a question for you.
>
> > > > Do you think it's a right for people to post to this forum
> > > > anonymously?
>
> > > > If you think people have to say who they are to justify what they say
> > > > here, then who are you?
>
> > > Doesn't work that way, Paul.
>
> > Does it not?  Why not?
>

So, you cannot explain why it "doesn't work that way, Paul"?

> > >  It's a question of having answered
> > > certain questions with a clear identity, as Pat Kohli has, then
> > > either  taking responsibility for those posts, or admitting to
> > > deliberate deception as a result of responding to VERY SPECIFIC
> > > personal information which, on the face of it, constitutes ownership
> > > of that online identity.
>
> > Do you think it's okay for people to post anonymously, or do you not?
>
> > Oh, and while we are at it, WHY aren't you answering Pat's questions
> > about why you've been libelling him?
>
> > >. I know how you're trying to play this one.
> > > It will be interesting to see how it pans out, won't it?
>
> > You're asserting an ability to read my mind now, are you?
>
> It's called being predictable. Almost robotically so. You know, like
> the robots in all those sci-fi programs you like so much?
>

Which robots would those be, Maybeam?

>
>
> > > > You really can't have this one both ways.
>
> > > You're in no position to tell me which way I can have it.
>
> > Oh right.  So it's YOU who makes the rules is it?  One way for you,
> > and another way for Pat?
>
> And you wonder why I would tell you that I can perceive your methods.
>

But, here you are, joining with Nima in a demand to see my birth
certificate. And yet you reserve to yourself the right to remain
anonymous.

I think it's quite an important question to understand why you think
you should be in charge of telling us "the way things work", and why
one set of people should be having to prove their identities and scan
birth certificates to satisfy the prurience of busibodies who accuse
us of varying degrees of mendacity, while you can happily refuse to
answer any personal questions at all.

There's a whole thread Nima started, which contains many true things
about me elsewhere on this board.

What is your name?

>
>
> > Isn't that known as hypocrisy?
>
> There you go again, imagining you would be an arbiter of such things.
>

Whereas, you seem to KNOW that you are the arbiter of such things. I
think it's only fair that you answer the question as to whether you
think it's okay for people to preserve their anonymity on the
internet.

Simple question. Will you answer it? Or make some vague crack about
my being "predictible" in an attempt to avoid giving any reasonable
answer to that question.


>
>
> > > > Pat is trying to make a point here, which relates to the point Diane
> > > > Farsetta was making on Sourcewatch.
>
> > > So All Bad is Pat. Good to clear that up. I think this is actually
> > > about much more than just making a point.
>
> > You can mind-read All Bad as easily as you can mind-read me, can you?
>
> Birds of a feather.
>

Flock together. And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
you can mind-read me? Was there an answer to that question, or just
the start of a proverb?


>
>
> > > > you appear to be making something of a mess of your responses here.
>
> > > Sure I am, Paul.
>
> > You sure are, May - or is that your name at all?
>
> > Paul
>

> How about pulling out that birth certificate, Paul?-

How about you go boil your head, May?

Paul

Ruhaniya

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 8:18:23 PM3/12/09
to
On Mar 13, 3:49 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

> Flock together.  And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
> you can mind-read me?

Obviously your predictability on this and other matters has made us
capable of reading your mind, yes.


> How about you go boil your head, May?

How about you demonstrate to us how it's done in person, limey ponce?

W

paha...@onetel.net.uk

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 8:42:09 PM3/12/09
to
On 13 Mar, 00:18, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:49 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > Flock together.  And you think you can mind-read All Bad as easily as
> > you can mind-read me?
>
> Obviously your predictability on this and other matters has made us
> capable of reading your mind, yes.
>

Well, I've made a prediction about your behaviour on Sourcewatch.
Let's wait and see how that one works out before we start awarding
points for mind-reading.

May's assertion that "she knows what we're doing" is about as
worthless as your continuous self-declared victories.

Really, all she's doing is being snarkily vague without actually
saying anything.

Oh, and lining up behind you like you paid her to do!

Paul

Aor

unread,
Mar 12, 2009, 8:52:19 PM3/12/09