The Babi succession on Wikipedia - a case study in opposing positions in an NPOV environment
PaulHammond
about the relative numbers who followed Baha'u'llah or Subh-i-Azal on
the article about the Bab on wikipedia.
I went there to check it out. My first impression was that the
section which talks about Azal or Baha'u'llah being the Bab's
successor was particularly badly written - because you can tell that
succeeding sentences were written the one by a person who thinks that
Baha'u'llah is the devil, and the next by someone who thinks
Baha'u'llah is God. Whereas, in my view, the encyclopedia entries
ought to read as if they were coherently written by one neutral person
who has fairly assessed and fairly explained the differing viewpoints
about any issue. (That's MY understanding of what the Wikipedia
policy of Neutral Point of VIew aspires to achieve).
ANyway, I thought it might be a useful exercise - and hopefully more
productive of light rather than heated accusations - if I went through
that section picking out the bias paragraph by paragraph - here I'm
hoping to illustrate what I just said to Seon about trying to sort out
Azali bias from Baha'i bias in studying that period of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1b - The Bab article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD/B%C3%A1b%C3%AD_split -
the longer article precisely about the Babi/Baha'i split which this
section refers to.
Surprisingly, I found that I tend to agree with Nima on this one -
there are more Baha'i bias sentences than Azali biased ones in this
section.
here's that section with my comments:
"In most of his prominent writings, The Báb alluded to a Promised One,
most commonly referred to as man yazhiruhu'lláh, "He whom God shall
make manifest", and that he himself was "but a ring upon the hand of
Him Whom God shall make manifest.""
So far, so uncontroversial
"Within 20 years of the Báb's death, over 25 people claimed to be the
Promised One, most significantly Bahá'u'lláh."
This is clearly a point made by the Azalis - if Baha'u'llah was only
one of so many, it's easy to say his claims can't have been true. The
point that is not being referred to here is the fact that most of
those other 20-odd people were claiming this status within a year or
so of the Bab's execution, while the Babis were still traumatised by
his death. Baha'u'llah's claims came much later, in 1863.
"Before the Báb's death, he sent a letter to Mírzá Yahyá, titled Subh-
i-Azal, which is considered to be his will and testament.[27] The
letter is recognized as appointing Subh-i-Azal to be the leader of the
Bábí community after the death of the Báb."
"He is also ordered to obey the Promised One when he appears.[28] At
the time Subh-i-Azal was still a teenager, had never demonstrated
leadership in the Bábí movement, and was still living in the house of
his older brother, Bahá'u'lláh. All of this lends credence to the
Bahá'í claim that the Báb appointed Subh-i-Azal the head of the Bábí
Faith so as to divert attention away from Bahá'u'lláh, while allowing
Bábís to visit Bahá'u'lláh and consult with Him freely, and allowing
Bahá'u'lláh to write Bábís easily and freely. Furthermore, there is a
long history in Shí`ism of hidden leaders, with their deputies
wielding the true power (the four bábs themselves are the first
examples of this, as is `Alí-Muhammad's choice of the title "the
Báb")."
This is clearly a very Baha'i-biased version - and it's certainly a
matter of this person's opinion of Subh-i-Azal's character, seeming to
depend on their reading the Bab's mind rather than any kind of
documentation. It's not likely that a letter from the Bab saying "I
was only joking when I appointed Azal" will turn up now, which is
virtually the only way such a theory could be proved.
"Bahá'u'lláh claimed that in 1853, while a prisoner in Tehran, he was
visited by a "Maid of Heaven", which symbolically marked the beginning
of his mission as a Messenger of God. Ten years later in Baghdad, he
made his first public declaration and eventually was recognized by the
vast majority of Bábís as "He whom God shall make manifest". His
followers began calling themselves Bahá'ís.[29]"
This is the basic Baha'i account, and seems to be an unproblematic
telling of what Baha'u'llah claimed, and why his followers started
calling themselves by this new name: Baha'i.
"Subh-i-Azal continued to live with or close to Bahá'u'lláh throughout
the latter's exiles from Iran to Baghdad and then to Istanbul and
Edirne, even though Bahá'u'lláh's claim to be a messenger God in 1863
theoretically rendered moot Subh-i-Azal's authority as the head of the
Bábí community. In September 1867, in Edirne, the rival claims to
authority came to a head. Subh-i-Azal challenged Bahá'u'lláh to a test
of the divine will in a local mosque in Edirne (Adrianople), such that
"God would strike down the impostor". Bahá'u'lláh agreed and went to
the Sultan Selim mosque at the appointed time, but Mirza Yahya failed
to show up.[30]"
This seems to be from a Baha'i account - but I imagine the facts about
where Subh-i-Azal lived up until 1867 could be verified and are
probably true.
"Subh-i-Azal's followers became known as Azalis or Azali Bábís. For
the Bábís who did not recognize Bahá'u'lláh, Subh-i-Azal remained
their leader until his death in 1912. Whether or not he had a
successor is disputed. Bahá'í sources report that 11 of the 18
"witnesses" appointed by Subh-i-Azal to oversee the Bábí community
became Bahá'ís, as well as his son. The man allegedly appointed by
Subh-i-Azal to succeed him, Hadíy-i-Dawlat-Abádí, later publicly
recanted his faith in the Báb and Subh-i-Azal.[31]"
Subh-i-Azal died in 1912 is probably uncontroversial. Everything else
has been put in by a Baha'i-friendly editor - seemingly sourced, since
I doubt information about who Azal appointed to suceed HIM is easy to
come by.
"Ultimately, Bahá'u'llah emerged more successful and nearly all of the
Báb's followers abandoned Subh-i-Azal and became Bahá'ís. Today
Bahá'ís have several million followers, while estimates of the number
of Azalís are generally around one thousand, isolated in Iran"
This is a summary of the situation at present, where few but
specialists have heard of the Azalis. I wonder why there's no mention
of the community living in Cyprus? (I assume I'm not misremembering a
Cyprus connection).
Conclusion - this section *doesn't* give any information about which
community was the bigger in the years immediately after Baha'u'llah's
claims to leadership.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
<Paul Hammond's gratuitous political calculated back-flip snipped>
> Subh-i-Azal died in 1912 is probably uncontroversial. Everything else
> has been put in by a Baha'i-friendly editor - seemingly sourced, since
> I doubt information about who Azal appointed to suceed HIM is easy to
> come by.
There isn't because He didn't. Browne is the sole source that claims
Azal appointed Hadi Dawlatabadi as His successor who predeceased Him
by 3-4 years. The source of this information seems to be Sa'id
Kurdistani, who wasn't particularly favorable to the Bayanis in any
case. Elsewhere, in the catalogues article, Browne claims that he had
in his possession a letter stating that one of Azal's children/
grandchildren who was most like Him was to be appointed His successor.
Yet there sill isn't a shred of actual documentation proffered by
Browne from the Azal family on this either. In not nominating a
successor Subh-i-Azal was meticulously following the explicit
instructions of the Will and Testament of the Primal Point nominating
Him, which categorically stated:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/abac1eaace6c4fce/81d40cafeb9d57da?lnk=st&q=Will+and+Testament+of+the+Primal+Point#81d40cafeb9d57da
"And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
God."
> Conclusion - this section *doesn't* give any information about which
> community was the bigger in the years immediately after Baha'u'llah's
> claims to leadership.
Surprise, surprise!
W
PaulHammond
wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:13 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> <Paul Hammond's gratuitous political calculated back-flip snipped>
>
I knew you wouldn't be able to cope with that! ;-)
It's called not deciding in advance what conclusions you're going to
reach - and not supressing facts which might work against your
argument or opinion. Maybe you'd like to try that sometime?
> > Subh-i-Azal died in 1912 is probably uncontroversial. Everything else
> > has been put in by a Baha'i-friendly editor - seemingly sourced, since
> > I doubt information about who Azal appointed to suceed HIM is easy to
> > come by.
>
> There isn't because He didn't. Browne is the sole source that claims
> Azal appointed Hadi Dawlatabadi as His successor who predeceased Him
> by 3-4 years.
Don't you claim that everything that Browne says is irrefutable, when
he agrees with you?
Strange that you'd change your tune when he says something that's
*inconvenient* to you, eh?
Wasn't it Vance Salisbury, whose essay on bias in studies of Baha'i
history I've just recently become aware of, who said that it was
terrible behaviour on the part of these Baha'is to only selectively
quote from EGBrowne what suited their arguments, while ignoring
whatever he says that doesn't suit them?
> In not nominating a
> successor Subh-i-Azal was meticulously following the explicit
> instructions of the Will and Testament of the Primal Point nominating
> Him, which categorically stated:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thre...
> "And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
> accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
> does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
> known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
> Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
> Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
> God."
>
The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he?
Paul
303
> Don't you claim that everything that Browne says is irrefutable, when
> he agrees with you?
Don't misdirect into bahaim irrelevencies. We're talking about the
source for Browne's claim regarding Azal's successor. If you have
evidence beyond Browne that Azal appointed a successor, bring it
forth. And I have never imputed scholarly infallibility upon EG
Browne.
<snip>
> Wasn't it Vance Salisbury, whose essay on bias in studies of Baha'i
> history I've just recently become aware of, who said that it was
> terrible behaviour on the part of these Baha'is to only selectively
> quote from EGBrowne what suited their arguments, while ignoring
> whatever he says that doesn't suit them?
Yep.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thre...
> > "And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
> > accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
> > does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
> > known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> > and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
> > Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
> > Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
> > God."
> The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he?
Nope, He is referring to the successor of Subh-i-Azal after His death
should one appear like Him, i.e. the next Mirror of the Bayan after
Mirza Yahya Nuri (amsf), who didn't. Since no successor appeared, the
Cause reverted to the People of the Bayan with the Bayan Itself as the
final authority in the absence of a Speaker.
W
PaulHammond
303 wrote:
> On Jul 2, 12:54 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Don't you claim that everything that Browne says is irrefutable, when
> > he agrees with you?
>
> Don't misdirect into bahaim irrelevencies. We're talking about the
> source for Browne's claim regarding Azal's successor. If you have
> evidence beyond Browne that Azal appointed a successor, bring it
> forth. And I have never imputed scholarly infallibility upon EG
> Browne.
>
Only when he says things the Baha'is don't like. you call foul if
Baha'i try to cast doubt on the bits of Browne's evidence that they
don't like.
Why is that only a foul when it's Baha'is who are doing it, not you?
> <snip>
>
> > Wasn't it Vance Salisbury, whose essay on bias in studies of Baha'i
> > history I've just recently become aware of, who said that it was
> > terrible behaviour on the part of these Baha'is to only selectively
> > quote from EGBrowne what suited their arguments, while ignoring
> > whatever he says that doesn't suit them?
>
> Yep.
>
Sooo - the point I'm making is passing you by completely?
You have just quoted a well-written scholarly article at length which
criticises the Baha'is for massaging the historical record to fit the
version of history they like best, without being honest about how they
are recasting that record.
Yet you can't see how Dr Salisbury's criticisms apply equally to you
when you behave the same way?
You REALLY can't see that?
Have you actually read and understood Dr Salisbury's article? Or was
it just another piece of material for your anti-Baha'i regurgiposts as
I suspected?
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thre...
> > > "And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
> > > accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
> > > does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
> > > known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> > > and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
> > > Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
> > > Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
> > > God."
>
> > The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he?
>
> Nope, He is referring to the successor of Subh-i-Azal after His death
> should one appear like Him, i.e. the next Mirror of the Bayan after
> Mirza Yahya Nuri (amsf), who didn't. Since no successor appeared, the
> Cause reverted to the People of the Bayan with the Bayan Itself as the
> final authority in the absence of a Speaker.
>
The Baha'is believe that this comment is meant to refer to
Baha'u'llah, don't they?
I didn't expect that YOU would agree with that attribution. Mostly,
I'm teasing you.
But once again - it's perfectly possible, without doing the least
amount of violence to the meanings of words in the quote from the Bab
you just gave to interpret that paragraph as meaning:
"Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
You dismiss that interpretation - but really, you have to come up with
a better argument than "I say it doesn't mean that, so it doesn't" if
you're going to convince anyone to put the interpretation YOU prefer
on that passage from the Bab.
Paul
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> Only when he says things the Baha'is don't like. you call foul if
> Baha'i try to cast doubt on the bits of Browne's evidence that they
> don't like.
Because that part of what Browne says is 100% unassailable and history
has proven it such again and again. And this isn't a like or don't
like proposition. Subh-i-Azal had no successor. Browne claimed, in
contradictory fashion on two separate occasions based on Kurdistani's
information, that he did: once stating succession to SA by Hadi
Dowlatabadi, the next succession to SA being from among his family.
None of these are accurate. Now did you have anything else to add here
besides palu-ian bahaim misdirections?
> Why is that only a foul when it's Baha'is who are doing it, not you?
Because the Bahaim track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
obfuscating and whitewashing history is legion and incontestable and
meticulously documented and attested by every objective outsider as
well.
> You have just quoted a well-written scholarly article at length which
> criticises the Baha'is for massaging the historical record to fit the
> version of history they like best, without being honest about how they
> are recasting that record.
We have rehearsed these things with you a 1000 times again and again.
Go to bayanic.com and read it for yourself all over AGAIN!
>
> The Baha'is believe that this comment is meant to refer to
> Baha'u'llah, don't they?
The Bahaim are full of shit, as with everything they believe now and
everything they have believed in the past, because the comment is
directed SPECIFICALLY at Subh-i-Azal in the Will and Testament of the
Point to Azal - not to 238 and brother of the fruit. Once again, the
Will says,
"And if in your days [O Azal] God should manifest one like unto you
[i.e. another mirror],
He is accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause
[i.e. the Cause being the Bayan].
And if He does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His
Self be
known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
and the Lord of the worlds. Command the Witnesses who are among the
most
God fearing in the Cause of their Lord, those who shall not transgress
against the
limits placed by God."
Would you like me to break down the Arabic for a stupid dunce like you
too?
>Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
>you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
That is NOT remotely what the Will and Testament of the Point suggests
in that passage, not even by implication.
<big bahaim BS snip>
W
PaulHammond
Death to Haifan Bahaism wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:10 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Only when he says things the Baha'is don't like. you call foul if
> > Baha'i try to cast doubt on the bits of Browne's evidence that they
> > don't like.
>
> Because that part of what Browne says is 100% unassailable and history
> has proven it such again and again. And this isn't a like or don't
> like proposition. Subh-i-Azal had no successor. Browne claimed, in
> contradictory fashion on two separate occasions based on Kurdistani's
> information, that he did: once stating succession to SA by Hadi
> Dowlatabadi, the next succession to SA being from among his family.
> None of these are accurate. Now did you have anything else to add here
> besides palu-ian bahaim misdirections?
>
So, Browne is 100% unassailable when you say he is, and Browne is 100%
wrong when he says something you don't like.
Thank you for quite clearly re-stating my argument. Did you have an
answer to it?
>
> > Why is that only a foul when it's Baha'is who are doing it, not you?
>
> Because the Bahaim track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
> obfuscating and whitewashing history is legion and incontestable and
> meticulously documented and attested by every objective outsider as
> well.
>
You have a bigger track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
obfuscating and whitewashing history than any Baha'i could ever manage
in several lifetimes - as I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE - and as we
all know from the various "memory lane" threads you've started
recently.
Ergo YOU don't have the right to make these hypocritical moves that
you call foul when a Baha'i does it.
> > You have just quoted a well-written scholarly article at length which
> > criticises the Baha'is for massaging the historical record to fit the
> > version of history they like best, without being honest about how they
> > are recasting that record.
>
> We have rehearsed these things with you a 1000 times again and again.
> Go to bayanic.com and read it for yourself all over AGAIN!
>
Why will the lies you tell be more palatable when I read them at your
personal website where they are expressed in an even longer and more
turgid form than in your screed-monkey spams here?
I believe the question I ACTUALLY asked you was how can you possibly
be missing the point that the precise criticisms Salisbury makes of
the Baha'is in that article apply to your selective application of the
evidence from EGBrowne only to prove the version of history that you
want to believe.
If Hatcher and Martin rehearsed what they say 1000 times again and
again, and put it up on an official Baha'i website, would that allow
them to evade the criticisms of Salisbury?
> >
> > The Baha'is believe that this comment is meant to refer to
> > Baha'u'llah, don't they?
>
> The Bahaim are full of shit, as with everything they believe now and
> everything they have believed in the past, because the comment is
> directed SPECIFICALLY at Subh-i-Azal in the Will and Testament of the
> Point to Azal - not to 238 and brother of the fruit. Once again, the
> Will says,
>
> "And if in your days [O Azal] God should manifest one like unto you
> [i.e. another mirror],
> He is accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause
> [i.e. the Cause being the Bayan].
> And if He does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His
> Self be
> known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> and the Lord of the worlds. Command the Witnesses who are among the
> most
> God fearing in the Cause of their Lord, those who shall not transgress
> against the
> limits placed by God."
>
> Would you like me to break down the Arabic for a stupid dunce like you
> too?
>
Baha'u'llah is "another mirror" (he's man yuzhir'u'llah - that's
BIGGER than the Bab)
Baha'u'llah is the inheritor of the Bayan.
QED.
>
> >Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
> >you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
>
>
> That is NOT remotely what the Will and Testament of the Point suggests
> in that passage, not even by implication.
>
sorry - you've said the same thing again, clarifying the points that a
perfect mirror means a Manifestation of God, and The Cause means the
whole faith, the book of the Bayan, all the Bab's followers, etc.
The Baha'is absolutely do believe that Baha'u'llah is such a perfect
mirror - so apart from the fact that you don't like them applying such
terms to Baha'u'llah, what is wrong with the Baha'is interpreting that
passage that way?
Paul
Death to Haifan Bahaism
> So, Browne is 100% unassailable when you say he is, and Browne is 100%
> wrong when he says something you don't like.
Typical palu-ian Twilight Zone bahaim logic. When the issue is about
something else, impute other completely different motives. What Browne
has written about the Bahaim is indisputable.
> You have a bigger track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
> obfuscating and whitewashing history
I am not a Bahaim, you are! I have accurately and meticulously
reported history.
>than any Baha'i could ever manage
> in several lifetimes - as I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE -
Your personal experience and your word is utterly worthless and
meaningless, as everyone and anyone who has ever locked horns with you
attests. You are malicious, nasty cultist LIAR, bar none. You have
nothing to say. You have no valid rejoinder to any argument I have
made. You are full of shit as are the rest of your IT committee posse
here.
>sorry - you've said the same thing again, clarifying the points that a
>perfect mirror means a Manifestation of God,
And?
>and The Cause means the
>whole faith, the book of the Bayan, all the Bab's followers, etc.
And?
>Baha'u'llah is "another mirror" (he's man yuzhir'u'llah - that's
>BIGGER than the Bab)
If by Baha' Allah you mean Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nari, than he wasn't a
wart upon the backside of a gnat, let alone Mirror. After the First
Unity of the Bayan, Baha'u'llah was one of the many proper titles of
Subh-i-Azal Himself in any case. Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nari was a usurper
and a false claimant, and before 1867 an absolute nobody. Now how such
sectarian theological questions are so important to someone claiming
to be a non-bahaim like you, is anyone's guess, since they are the
tried and true positions of hardline bahaim fundamentalism all the
way!
Death to Haifan Bahaism
Indeed, I Am.
W
303
> The Baha'is absolutely do believe that Baha'u'llah is such a perfect
> mirror -
Many Germans also believed Adolf Hitler was their savior. Ideologies
built on the foundations of lies, sleights of hands, misdirections,
wooly silences and outright historical falsifications whilst
reinforced by a lifetime of instilled, programmed fear on its sheep -
like Haifan Bahaism - will have people believe absolutely anything!
Look at you, for example.
> so apart from the fact that you don't like them applying such
> terms to Baha'u'llah, what is wrong with the Baha'is interpreting that
> passage that way?
Because that passage categorically, plainly and unequivocally does NOT
state what a cynical, callous sectarian keyboard for hire cultist twat
such as you and your IT committee thug-goon friends as prompted by
your masters in Zionistan wants to make it say. That is why (not that
TRUTH or FACTS have remotely ever mattered to you FASCISTS here at
anytime)!
W
All Bad
news:79c3f2dd-8d76-4b67...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, Browne is 100% unassailable when you say he is, and Browne is 100%
>> wrong when he says something you don't like.
>
> Typical palu-ian Twilight Zone bahaim logic. When the issue is about
> something else, impute other completely different motives. What Browne
> has written about the Bahaim is indisputable.
>
> > You have a bigger track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
>> obfuscating and whitewashing history
>
> I am not a Bahaim, you are! I have accurately and meticulously
> reported history.
>
You systematically lie. Nothing you write has any credence on your say so.
Paul is _not_ a Baha'i as you say, and he _knows_it_. You, on the other
hand, are quick to manufacture your own history, even your family of origin,
occasionally to include Jews and variously no Jews.
- All Bad
bayani....@gmail.com
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thre...
> > "And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
> > accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
> > does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
> > known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> > and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
> > Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
> > Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
> > God."
>
> The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he?
>
> Paul
One of the very good reasons why Nima insists you Paul the Bull, are a
Bahai is the sheer fact that you feel quite comfortable sipping down
your throat every single bit of Bahai bull shit.
I have demonstrated this suffciently and comprehensively before but
you do also share this gene with Bahais that no matter how conclusive
the evidence, it just does not penetrate what is cemented in your
skull.
The passgae goes like this "If god cause one like thee unto thee to
appear in thy days, then he it is to whom shall be bequeathed the
command [i.e. the Bayani cause] on the part of god, the Single, the
One. But if [such an One] appears not, know for surety, that god hath
not willed to make himself known, and render up the authority to god,
your lord, and the lord of the worlds, all, and ordain the witnesses,
who fear god, and do not exceed the bounds set up by god.”
1) He Whom God Shall Make Manifest is NOT like Subh-i Azal. Subh-i
Azal was the Primal Mirror of the Point. The command of Bayan was to
be handed over to someone else who ranked like Subh-i Azal. For
example Ali the successor of Muhammad (according to Shia) passed the
command to his son.
No one appeared like Subh-i Azal. Subh-i Azal never nominated anyone
as such and Hadi Dowlat Abadi never made any claim as such either.
This is despite the mad Shoghi making up fables.
2) He Whom God Shall Make Manifest does not take the command from Subh-
i Azal: HWGSMM is much more exalted to have the command to be handed
over to him by Subh-i Azal.
The funny thing is that Bahais do not acknowledge the letter to be a
statement of handing over the authority of Bayan to Subh-i Azal, yet
they manage to fish ugly creatures out of this crystal clear water.
One thing Bahais need to think about every time they are not under the
influence of Bahai drugs is the fact that Subh-i Azal is said in this
letter to be capable of revealing verses of God in the same way as the
Point did.
Now, Husayn-Alists can take the stupid story of Subhi- Azal shielding
Husayn-Ali to grave but it is the most nonsensical story since Husayn-
Ali was always keen to be at the front and keep Subh-i Azal in
seclusion.
There is no reference to 238 (Husayn-Ali) in this tablet.
Steve
PaulHammond
Death to Haifan Bahaism wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > So, Browne is 100% unassailable when you say he is, and Browne is 100%
> > wrong when he says something you don't like.
>
> Typical palu-ian Twilight Zone bahaim logic. When the issue is about
> something else, impute other completely different motives. What Browne
> has written about the Bahaim is indisputable.
>
Why is you saying that Browne is 100% unassailable only when he agree
with you "indisputible", while when Browne says what you find
unpalatable he's 100% wrong ANY different from Hatcher and Martin
quoting Browne only to portray the image of the Baha'i Faith that THEY
find palatable.
Honestly, if I had to choose between trusting what Hatcher and Martin
say and trusting what you say, I'd pick Hatcher and Martin every time.
"Because I say so" does not count as a coherent argument.
Ad-hom comments about me, calling me a jewish animal and mentioning a
popular old-fashioned fantasy/horror show doesn't substitute for
argument either, in my book.
> > You have a bigger track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
> > obfuscating and whitewashing history
>
> I am not a Bahaim, you are! I have accurately and meticulously
> reported history.
>
I didn't say you were a Jewish animal. I said that you have told
many, many lies about me, involved yourself in many personal campaigns
against me.
From personal experience I know that you are a liar.
Why do you think that you saying "I always tell the truth" will sound
convincing to me when I know you to be a liar.
> >than any Baha'i could ever manage
> > in several lifetimes - as I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE -
>
> Your personal experience and your word is utterly worthless and
> meaningless, as everyone and anyone who has ever locked horns with you
> attests.
It isn't possible to tell someone that their personal experiences are
worthless. My personal experience, quite naturally, will trump any
nonsense that anybody tries to pass off on me in a newsgroup.
Especially when it comes from a source that has repeatedly proven as
untrustworthy as your word.
I didn't start this thread in order to trade insults with you - in
fact, I started this thread as a demonstration of something that I
said to Seon Ferguson on another thread.
But in this particular instance, I was asking for rational
justification for you behaving in exactly the same manner as the
behaviour that Vance Salibury criticised in Baha'i authors. If you
expect Baha'is to live up to the standards Vance Salisbury proposes
you too have a duty to live up to those standards.
If you ARE convinced that talking to me is worthless, then why waste
your time doing it?
>You are malicious, nasty cultist LIAR, bar none. You have
> nothing to say. You have no valid rejoinder to any argument I have
> made. You are full of shit as are the rest of your IT committee posse
> here.
I have asked you to justify why you expect the Baha'is to live up to
standards of acknowledging the inconvenient parts in testimony from
EGBrowne, while thinking that those standards should not apply to the
Azalis when they want to ignore the inconvenient parts of EGBrowne.
Instead of attempting to answer, you have gotten angry and taken it to
a personal insult level.
I assume this shows that you have no coherent answer to give, and my
suspicion that you think Vance's objections should apply to one side
only in the debate are correct.
>
> >sorry - you've said the same thing again, clarifying the points that a
> >perfect mirror means a Manifestation of God,
>
> And?
>
So, you've simply confirmed the original argument that I made. I was
already interpreting those terms in the way you said I should. Simply
applying them to a person who you object to most strongly. Just as
the Baha'is would object most strongly to applying such terms to
anyone OTHER than Baha'u'llah.
> >and The Cause means the
> >whole faith, the book of the Bayan, all the Bab's followers, etc.
>
> And?
>
> >Baha'u'llah is "another mirror" (he's man yuzhir'u'llah - that's
> >BIGGER than the Bab)
>
> If by Baha' Allah you mean Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nari, than he wasn't a
> wart upon the backside of a gnat, let alone Mirror.
Yes, I know that YOU think that.
In fact, I specifically said this:
"The Baha'is absolutely do believe that Baha'u'llah is such a perfect
mirror - so apart from the fact that you don't like them applying such
terms to Baha'u'llah, what is wrong with the Baha'is interpreting that
passage that way? "
So, what argument are you giving me here except "The Azalis don't like
it when the Baha'is express their belief that Baha'u'llah was a
Manifestation of God, Perfect Mirror, Heir to the Bayan" etc. etc.
Apart from your personal opinion that Baha'u'llah was evil, there's
nothing wrong with the Baha'is believing that if they want, and
interpreting this passage that way if they want.
If there was, you'd have given it, right?
Paul
PaulHammond
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thre...
> > > "And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is
> > > accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He
> > > does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be
> > > known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord
> > > and the Lord of the worlds. Command the
> > > Witnesses who are among the most God fearing in the Cause of their
> > > Lord, those who shall not transgress against the limits placed by
> > > God."
>
> > The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he?
>
> > Paul
>
> One of the very good reasons why Nima insists you Paul the Bull, are a
> Bahai is the sheer fact that you feel quite comfortable sipping down
> your throat every single bit of Bahai bull shit.
Fuck off, Steve.
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What happened? Your reason prevailed, as usual? You never fail to come
up with an ace card of yours.
There is one word in that passage that tells you to get lost and it is
this "meslaka" meaning "Someone like you". Now, take that to your
friends and ask for help.
Now, you could admit you just parroted the Husayn-Alists and repeated
the same garbage without looking into it, but you that is not you.
bayani....@gmail.com
> "Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
> you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
>
> You dismiss that interpretation - but really, you have to come up with
> a better argument than "I say it doesn't mean that, so it doesn't" if
> you're going to convince anyone to put the interpretation YOU prefer
> on that passage from the Bab.
Thre is your answer again: "meslaka".
Another easy to see proof in that passage is that it says the command
of Bayan reaches the Witnesses of Bayan in case no one like him
appeared.
This clearly indicates that the torch that is to be carried is the
command of Bayan which is a completely different thing to the command
of HWGSMM.
There is absolutely nothing in Bayanic works that indicates the next
manifestation could occur in less than 1511 years after the year 1850.
bayani....@gmail.com
> Baha'u'llah is "another mirror" (he's man yuzhir'u'llah - that's
> BIGGER than the Bab)
Your wires are twisted.
HWGSMM is one thing the Mirror of the Point is another. You are also
contradicting yourself.
How can what is in the Mirror be bigger (or different) to what is in
front of the mirror?
Husayn-Ali was neither Bahaullah nor HWGSMM.
>
> Baha'u'llah is the inheritor of the Bayan.
HWGSMM and not Husayn-Ali is the Point of the next manifestation which
is the same as the Primal Point in the sense that the light of God
appears in a human body who will be the Creator of a the next book.
Everything in Bayan is of Him and for Him.
Now, the Bayan is not surrendered to HWGSMM by Subh-i Azal. That would
be a huge degredation of the station of HWGSMM.
>
> > >Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
> > >you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
>
> > That is NOT remotely what the Will and Testament of the Point suggests
> > in that passage, not even by implication.
>
> sorry - you've said the same thing again, clarifying the points that a
> perfect mirror means a Manifestation of God, and The Cause means the
> whole faith, the book of the Bayan, all the Bab's followers, etc.
>
> The Baha'is absolutely do believe that Baha'u'llah is such a perfect
> mirror - so apart from the fact that you don't like them applying such
> terms to Baha'u'llah, what is wrong with the Baha'is interpreting that
> passage that way?
Subh-i Azal was the Mirror of the Point. HWGSMM is Not.
The cause of Bayan is not rendered to HWGSMM to be carried on. The
Cause of Bayan terminates before HWGSMM is ordained with the Cause of
His Book.
The subject of this passage is the continuity of the Cause of Bayan.
The witnesses of Bayan carry the torch of Bayan. Subh-i Azal carried
the torch of Bayan and someone like Subh-i Azal would have also
carried the Torch of Bayan.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58e8914e-e6e2-40d4...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > Fuck off, Steve.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> What happened? Your reason prevailed, as usual? You never fail to come
> up with an ace card of yours.
> There is one word in that passage that tells you to get lost and it is
> this "meslaka" meaning "Someone like you". Now, take that to your
> friends and ask for help.
> Now, you could admit you just parroted the Husayn-Alists and repeated
> the same garbage without looking into it, but you that is not you.
Stephanie, just about nobody around here gives a flying fart about your
banyani shenanigans. If you want to flog the banyani spin then find some
banyani list on which to do so.
Piss off! There's a good girl, now!
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Same goes for yoy dead weed!
I must have hurt you real bad. You scumbag don't own trb. I responded
to a sibling of yours with hard proof evidence. Now, take that to your
Gods in Acre and beg for an answer.
In the mean time go an worship the god of Salmani the killer and Abbas
the Khanas.
bayani....@gmail.com
Just one more thing for you dead weed:
If you think Bayan or Bayani is not something you "could give a flying
fart about" then I have news for you. Your Husayn-Ali did more than
that. He claimed he was the champion of the Bayan. If what you are
saying were to be true, your Husayn-Ali would be the actual supreme
flying fart himself.
Now, think it over, Dead Weed.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f89ff92f-744c-415f...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stephanie, just about nobody around here gives a flying fart about your
> banyani shenanigans. If you want to flog the banyani spin then find some
> banyani list on which to do so.
>
> Piss off! There's a good girl, now!
> Same goes for yoy dead weed!
I is not a girl, Stephanie!
> I must have hurt you real bad.
Sweetie, don't flatter yourself!
> You scumbag don't own trb.
Correct ... you scumbag don't own TRB ... I do recall however that it is
Talk.Religion.Bahai not Banyani. Ergo if you want to do Banyani go form your
own group.
> I responded
> to a sibling of yours with hard proof evidence. Now, take that to your
> Gods in Acre and beg for an answer.
I have no Gods!
> In the mean time go an worship the god of Salmani the killer and Abbas
> the Khanas.
Good old Stephanie comes on board to take the pressure off Nimikins. He got
me to do that one time. Big difference is that I'm good at it .. and you
and Nimikins ain't.
I'll give you a little advice ... drop him before he drops you!
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81ec52d8-4a5a-4114...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Just one more thing for you dead weed:
> If you think Bayan or Bayani is not something you "could give a flying
> fart about" then I have news for you. Your Husayn-Ali did more than
> that. He claimed he was the champion of the Bayan. If what you are
> saying were to be true, your Husayn-Ali would be the actual supreme
> flying fart himself.
> Now, think it over, Dead Weed.
No need Stephanie ... let me expand on my statement.
I've had my fill of sectarianism. I don't give a flying fart about any of
the many sects in the world ... that includes Bayan and Bahai. And have the
good grace to accept that and not revert to your master's allegations of
conspiracy. I stated earlier that I was post-Bahai and post religion. That
is the situation - I do not defend any of them.
bayani....@gmail.com
> Sweetie, don't flatter yourself!
>
> > You scumbag don't own trb.
>
> Correct ... you scumbag don't own TRB ... I do recall however that it is
> Talk.Religion.Bahai not Banyani. Ergo if you want to do Banyani go form your
> own group.
You are blind too. The discussion was related directly to what I
responded.
I will post where I want. Now, cry yourself to death.
>
> > I responded
> > to a sibling of yours with hard proof evidence. Now, take that to your
> > Gods in Acre and beg for an answer.
>
> I have no Gods!
Sure you do. Don't try to wipe your footprints. They are everywhere.
>
> > In the mean time go an worship the god of Salmani the killer and Abbas
> > the Khanas.
>
> Good old Stephanie comes on board to take the pressure off Nimikins. He got
> me to do that one time. Big difference is that I'm good at it .. and you
> and Nimikins ain't.
>
> I'll give you a little advice ... drop him before he drops you!
You dead weed will always remain to be a dead weed regardless of your
name change. You stink the same.
I came on board to tell Pauline that next time he quotes a Bahai
claim, he is up for a big smack real hard. Now, if you or he had
anything to say you wouldn't be coming up with the garbage you have.
What you Bahais are short of real bad is evidence to support your
bogus claims and when you have the hard hitting evidence which refutes
it, you resort to rubbish. In particular you.
Take a god damn look at your posts and show mw one where you were able
to reason with evidence?
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Right!! Nice U turn!
Why did you pick up your broken stick against what I had to say. Did I
hurt your friend? Or was it that you simply don't like anyone who
seems to be supporting Nima!
What is your argument with me?
Or is it that you have an apetite for vulgar and can't get enough of
it at home?
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2f6a6d4-8a6c-4c1d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 7:51 pm, "The Blue Fiddle"
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:81ec52d8-4a5a-4114...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Just one more thing for you dead weed:
> > If you think Bayan or Bayani is not something you "could give a flying
> > fart about" then I have news for you. Your Husayn-Ali did more than
> > that. He claimed he was the champion of the Bayan. If what you are
> > saying were to be true, your Husayn-Ali would be the actual supreme
> > flying fart himself.
> > Now, think it over, Dead Weed.
>
> No need Stephanie ... let me expand on my statement.
>
> I've had my fill of sectarianism. I don't give a flying fart about any of
> the many sects in the world ... that includes Bayan and Bahai. And have
> the
> good grace to accept that and not revert to your master's allegations of
> conspiracy. I stated earlier that I was post-Bahai and post religion. That
> is the situation - I do not defend any of them.
SB: Right!! Nice U turn!
PK: He's been flying straight and level, though you can't see that.
SB: Why did you pick up your broken stick against what I had to say. Did I
hurt your friend? Or was it that you simply don't like anyone who
seems to be supporting Nima!
What is your argument with me?
Or is it that you have an apetite for vulgar and can't get enough of
it at home?
PK: Maybe you could try an inflammatory question?
- All Bad
PaulHammond
> > "Hey, Azal - if someone claims to be a Manifestation of God while
> > you're around - you have to recognise him and do what he tells you".
>
> > You dismiss that interpretation - but really, you have to come up with
> > a better argument than "I say it doesn't mean that, so it doesn't" if
> > you're going to convince anyone to put the interpretation YOU prefer
> > on that passage from the Bab.
>
> Thre is your answer again: "meslaka".
Didn't I already tell you to fuck off once?
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2f6a6d4-8a6c-4c1d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > I've had my fill of sectarianism. I don't give a flying fart about any
> > of
> > the many sects in the world ... that includes Bayan and Bahai. And have
> > the
> > good grace to accept that and not revert to your master's allegations of
> > conspiracy. I stated earlier that I was post-Bahai and post religion.
> > That
>> is the situation - I do not defend any of them.
> Right!! Nice U turn!
No u-turn there, had you the eyes, ears and brain to perceive and
understand.
> Why did you pick up your broken stick against what I had to say. Did I
> hurt your friend? Or was it that you simply don't like anyone who
> seems to be supporting Nima!
> What is your argument with me?
You're an asshole. Grasp it, understand it, learn to live with it and then
go argue with people who are interested in matters banyani. I'm not
interested. You cannot seem to get that message into your minuscule mind.
Face facts - the war twixt Banyanis and Bahais was fought and lost years ago
... and your lot lost. You're fighting a lost cause - you have not got the
battalions to win and you haven't the charm or charisma to win recruits to
your cause. You have a real talent for getting up people's noses - you
probably learned it from Nimikins ... or is it endemic to Banyanis. Don't
answer that ... just go away and save yourself the hassle of being mauled
around here. Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
the way you present it.
> Or is it that you have an apetite for vulgar and can't get enough of
> it at home?
Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar and you haven't got what it takes to rile
a t'ick Mick! Your Boss has been trying to do it for years and all he has
achieved is to turn himself into a laughing stock! If you really want to
win support, you need to seduce folks ... you need to show them that , being
a Banyani, you're a lot nicer than the nasty Bahais because you have
assimilated the divine fragrances ... and they haven't! The fragrances
wafting from you and Nimikins more closely resemble those that rise from a
midden - you are, in short, a nasty pair of pathetic gobshites.
bayani....@gmail.com
You are the one who is "fuck off" once again.
In reference to the Tablet of Succession in which it says: ""If god
cause one like thee unto thee to appear in thy days, ...”
"
You said: "The Bab was referring to Baha'u'llah there, wasn't he? "
You got ahead of youself and parroted the Bahai claim who also appear
to be blind to the keyord "Some one Like Yourself" and not HWGSMM.
The funny thing is that even Husayn-Ali and his sons who pull off a
rabit out of an oil barrel and have been all over this tablet did not
manage this trick. Well done.
So, there you go. You are "fuck off" once again.
bayani....@gmail.com
You made your u turn when you realised you made a flying fart of
Husayn-Ali.
You dragged your ugly presence into something had nothing to do with
you and My response was directly related to what was said.
> Why did you pick up your broken stick against what I had to say. Did I
> hurt your friend? Or was it that you simply don't like anyone who
> seems to be supporting Nima!
> What is your argument with me?
> You're an asshole. Grasp it, understand it, learn to live with it and then
go argue with people who are interested in matters banyani. I'm not
interested. You cannot seem to get that message into your minuscule
mind. <
You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
zombies.
> Face facts - the war twixt Banyanis and Bahais was fought and lost years ago
... and your lot lost. <
Look arsehole. Husayn-Ali and his ignorant followers will have always
been the losers and will always be.
Your 7 Millions Zombies are not worth one.
> You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
language he understands long time ago.
> probably learned it from Nimikins ...
Nop. See Hammond.
> or is it endemic to Banyanis.
No, it is called individual customisation.
> Don't answer that ...
Too late. I already did.
> Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
the way you present it.
You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
record.
My presentation is customised to the individuals.
> Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
vocabulary.
You still have not answered my question?
What was your argument with me when you first started to drag yourself
into this discussion? It is obvious that you know nothing of Bahaism
either which explains why you were once.
What do you care if I responded to Hammond? Were you concerned about
the integrity of TRB to be a forum for Bahais?
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c2f6a6d4-8a6c-4c1d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 7:51 pm, "The Blue Fiddle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:81ec52d8-4a5a-4114...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Just one more thing for you dead weed:
> > > If you think Bayan or Bayani is not something you "could give a flying
> > > fart about" then I have news for you. Your Husayn-Ali did more than
> > > that. He claimed he was the champion of the Bayan. If what you are
> > > saying were to be true, your Husayn-Ali would be the actual supreme
> > > flying fart himself.
> > > Now, think it over, Dead Weed.
>
> > No need Stephanie ... let me expand on my statement.
>
> > I've had my fill of sectarianism. I don't give a flying fart about any of
> > the many sects in the world ... that includes Bayan and Bahai. And have
> > the
> > good grace to accept that and not revert to your master's allegations of
> > conspiracy. I stated earlier that I was post-Bahai and post religion. That
> > is the situation - I do not defend any of them.
>
> SB: Right!! Nice U turn!
>
> PK: He's been flying straight and level, though you can't see that.
Sure I can see that. He didn't like what boomeranged on him.
>
> SB: Why did you pick up your broken stick against what I had to say. Did I
> hurt your friend? Or was it that you simply don't like anyone who
> seems to be supporting Nima!
> What is your argument with me?
> Or is it that you have an apetite for vulgar and can't get enough of
> it at home?
>
> PK: Maybe you could try an inflammatory question?
What inflammatory question?
You obviously see his remarks as polite!
My question stands. What as his businss with me when he deagged
himself into this discussion. May be you can answer this one or himas
well.
>
> - All Bad- Hide quoted text -
303
wrote:
> "Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathtobah...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:79c3f2dd-8d76-4b67...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >> So, Browne is 100% unassailable when you say he is, and Browne is 100%
> >> wrong when he says something you don't like.
>
> > Typical palu-ian Twilight Zone bahaim logic. When the issue is about
> > something else, impute other completely different motives. What Browne
> > has written about the Bahaim is indisputable.
>
> > > You have a bigger track record for falsifying, misdirecting,
> >> obfuscating and whitewashing history
>
> > I am not a Bahaim, you are! I have accurately and meticulously
> > reported history.
>
> You systematically lie.
I am not a BAHAIM. Systematically LYING is an article of your faith,
not mine.
W
Death to Haifan Bahaism
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> you haven't got what it takes to rile
> a t'ick Mick!
He already has...
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
Death to Haifan Bahaism
And haven't we told you to go FUCK YOURSELF a thousand times?
W
Death to Haifan Bahaism
wrote:
> PK: Maybe you could try an inflammatory question?
Here is an inflammatory proposition for you:
From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
Subject: Pat K, A joke...
Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
Pont by bloody point-
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie...
You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
post...and
months later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not
already been debunked.
Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bullshit here-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli. You do not deny
what all recognised at the time...you simply claim that because I
chased her
for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it. Your
irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I cry
"stop thief! explain yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at
Beliefnet, not nice"....then when I pursue her you claim the pursuit
negates the crime.
For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him. For exactly
the
same reason I persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their
vitriol and accusations, none in the Baha'i apologist gallery would
object to their abhorrent behaviour....and....in the end... having had
all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my face....it
was the hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment
in which they dared not
do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
wristed
such as yourself.
.> you'll be writing me from the killfile.
So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
core
points made, you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts,
you recycle old arguments long answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta,
I won't be responding to you" then you pop up with the same tired
shite. I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point
by laborious point every time you put it up (see below) you go right
ahead and crawl under your killfile rock with Susan. It is the surest
confirmation of the complete defeat of your intelectual inadequacy and
ethical deficiency..
> The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'.
I've
> pointed that out to you before.
The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
"nasty"
flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
ignore/dismiss as "All good clean fun so far"
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded73...
Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.03091
40328.3d2ad143%2
540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5
> Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
discourteous,
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K, recognising and
articulating the repetition of the enemy of faith allegations on
Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical revision spin
doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..
>your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
> another league from an intemperate remark.
An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan. I did
not begin a personalised flame war with Susan. I did not precede these
events with post after post of blatant misrepresentation. I did not
refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position nor
resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor follow
with killfile. I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to
ascertain the origin and rationale behind her allegation, flame and
personalised attack and received naught but further allegation/abuse.
I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
resolution through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans
rules' well before ever stooping to do so.
You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
I am
in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked
EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).
"libelings of " Susan? When someone attempts to steal from me I shout
"stop thief" and pursue them when they flee. You stand in the gutter
moaning- "Thief is a libellous charge" and "You pursue the alleged too
vigorously".
"Do we do this with others"?PK
Time after time after time.
"It is not good"PK It sucks
> Here is a quote from September 2003,
Great...you quote your own analysis of what transpired as further
screen
to any examination of actually transpired. What's more you quote from
the *One* post of yours on this issue that I did not respond to....The
reason I neglected to respond to the post you cite is because I could
not decide between-"Beneath contempt Pat" and "Fuck off Pat". It was,
and remains, the saddest lamest contribution you have made on any
issue and the fact that you would choose to link to it now (as
evidence of anything other than total blind bias) simply stuns me.
>when I was looking at the origins of your flamings of Susan Maneck,
Your own language reveals and betrays you...You went looking for the
origins of my flaming Susan and turned a blind eye to every occasion
she employed unprovoked ad hom.
> "Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message,
Snip
I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your analysis of
what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument, fail to respond
to the post and subsequently return to repeat the nonsense.
> and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,
Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.
> Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
> guys",
Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn. Go back and count
the number of times I was obliged to say- "I didn't say that Susan"
and factor that into your biased misrepresentation.
> you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
> various allegations which you would make up.
The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan over?
> I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
> allegations which I made up for them,
No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
never
happened because I pursued her over it.
>AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just
attribute
it right
> back to their intentions.
Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
it,
she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
provided
further confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to
respond to)
> > > I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you
decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
> > No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you
said
> > so at the time.
> There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
>What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
> worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.
An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that Susans
original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way "changed"
by my subsequent pursuit of her. Your argument is inane, insane and
morally bankrupt.
> > You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
> > completely
> > when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to
substantiate)
> > I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
> Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put
words in
> my mouth.
Your words- "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee,
and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K From your big mouth.
Reality from post record checked and confirmed.
> Speak for yourself. If you think I said
> something, go ahead and look it up!
Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
make it cease to exist.
> As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
> inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
> Bnet.
We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
reality
check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
recognised
reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we all
saw.
> However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behaviour in
>the matter:
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net,
So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!? Neither
of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged jackass insult
was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated requests (to Susan)
it remained (as did yours) just one of a string of ad homs devoid of
any justification/explanation.
So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.
> That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
> hypocrite:
Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.
> But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha ha.
Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
Here is part of the replay-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
> I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,
The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
cowards killfile? A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.
>you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
> fabrications are pointed out to you.
Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
rebuttals
that you must resort to killfile to avoid. I have knocked down your
every point and every equivocation at every turn....you have not even
responded to the points raised in my last post and your sounding
retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond to this one.
> You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the
killfile.
So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
of your equivocating arse once more.
> > You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
> > revisions
> > of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
> Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan
> of making allegations against you, and she did not make those
allegations.
Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
Priests
Pat?
Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat? I made or
inferred no direct allegation did I Pat? What I said was just a little
bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?
No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
you saw
Susan make.
> When you acknowledge that she did not make the
>allegation,
I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.
> you weasel back and renew your
> allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of
accusing
>you of
??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot? Can't
complete a coherent sentence?
I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
experimental ethical conduct-
> "Because it is the only moral option.
> Because it is the only ethical option.
> Because it is the only fair option.
> Because it is the only just option.
> Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
> Because it is the only peace option.
> Because it is the only healing option.
> Because it is the only truthful option
> Because it is the only principled option.
> Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
> Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
> Because it is the only Baha'i option.
> Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
> slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
> to my faith.
> Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals
relationship
> to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred
ground.
> Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
> you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
>member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
> Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302....
48dd619a%40posting.google.com
Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
resolution....here comes the spin doctor.
> Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
'anti-faith.'
SEE-
> "I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
meaning was
clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
subsequently refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further
innuendo.
Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
Boys
Pat? Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?
> and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it
in
>her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
you backflipping bastard.
> Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
> inference,
Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record
> In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you
were
> accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
> assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.
Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
details"
Snip
> "Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
> to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
> anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
> explain/substantiate/justify."
> Rod, 4 September 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
> You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation,
and it
> had already been found wanting.
What I see is you quoting what I have said all along. What are you
"wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words "Enemy of the
Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.
> This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
> that she says about you.
I say the police have your toilet block under survelience. I could say
that there is no clear allegation of association with a paedophile
faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bullshit.
Wouldn't it Pat?
>You've been repeating lies, and when you are
> confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case,
one
> which was already exposed as simply your own inference.
And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your eyes)
in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-
>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is what has changed" PK
Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
supposed "lie".
> > If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
> > convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post
record...
> > why bother?
> Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
> examples!
The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
have said all along. (Why don't you put up your links to posts
purporting to show Baha'is defending each other from abusive innuendo
and allegations that actually demonstrated the opposite....they served
as good examples of exactly
what you are doing now).
> When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
> anti-faith, you rationalise,
Lie. I never made such acknowledgment. I recognised (as did you) that
she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the anti
faith faction. All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of
language.
> rather than apologise.
I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
that you are earlier.
>You pursue your jihad,
Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
previously
mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
wanker.
>saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
> faith (though I did not show that link here),
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?
> and when you are confronted
> and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
> and rationalise your libels,
By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
of what transpired?
> > > A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
> > Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
> > to what others say with links to their posts.
> Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my
views.
By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
doing
otherwise.
>Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
> on words you put in her mouth.
Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
and
innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
obnoxious,
one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction" And Susan has been such
a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly clarify any
misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all read...clear
and unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
Pat?...ever ready to engage in vitriol free resolution from the
outset.....one only has to review the
lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
'Why
you should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.
Arsehole. .
> She never called you "anti-faith";
She never used those words.
> you made that up;
I never said she used those words.
>and she never called you "enemy of the faith",
She never used those words.
> you've made that up, too.
I never said she used those words either.
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!
> Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
>up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?
I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.
> > This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
> > invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your
assertions...each
> > time you fire a snide shot and flee.
> Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.
And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
I have said all along.
> Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
> allegations were solely your inferences.
That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
recognised
at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.
> Nothing changes, though.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
the
issue.
> > It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute
an
> > argument of any merit.
> The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called
> you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
> anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended
to do
>... so they should substantiate your allegation.
Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-
"This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK
You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
only
expose you further as a lying pissant.
> You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
Pissant is staple diet of jackass.
> > > When you label yourself
> > > an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote
the
> > >other party.
> > Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed
the
> > parallel
> > to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
> > asking-
> > "Is this what we do to others".
> No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,
A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
what
it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy. What "Susan had
done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to obscure it.
>but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another
matter.
What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
serious
false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
IT *CHANGES* NOTHING! And that's the backflipping point.
> You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the
Faith,
not
>Susan.
So it was her spelling that originally upset you? Go ahead....make my
day...put forward an alternate explanation for your discomfort with
the mysterious thing "Susan done".
> It stems from your own mind, though you have
> the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.
I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
that
"Susan apologise". And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
alleged imaginings. You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU
have said let alone what I have said.
> > When subsequently asked to explain
> > your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation
you
> > advised that
> > it was my response to what she said that changed things.
> I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
> and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
> year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put
words in
> my mouth.
God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
clear
objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
assessment of my "jackass" response to her allegation.
Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
assumptions/innuendo/allegations
of anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
apologists. Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in
"exactly the kind of crap".
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net, and
> then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
> was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got
shoved in
his face
> at B-Net, a dialectic."
> - me, 21 January 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
> "You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
> - Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
> (above)
> > Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
> You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be
something
> lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
> of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
> someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?
> > you called her
> > out for
> I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK The "bad manners" of
falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith faction, Arsewipe.
> > it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding
her
> > erases
> > the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
> > impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
> I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I was
"less of a jackass" two years prior. Now you say everything changes
because I pursued Susan too long for what she did wrong.
> Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.
Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
jackass"?
Your tribal bias bullshit is repugnant. You will stand by Susans shit.
You will stand by Joplins shit. You will tell me neither stink...and
that I should change my sox.
> You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
> when you are confronted.
When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
your previously stated position I will consider it.
> > Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the
faith?
> I told you that in September. Last year
You backflipped in September last year and I said so then
> I told you that you were reading her mind.
I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
her post, and yours.
> Even you said in September that she didn't
> lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being
> anti-faith,
That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
the
faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
grounds?
> an accusation you'd already tried out
> against her in February,
I know of no (two) separate/independent allegations.
> where you announced that your accusation was
> based on _her_intention_.
No. I said her "intention" was clear and not dependent on the
use of explicit 'terms' such as EofF.
> This means you refused to
> substantiate where she had said what you said she said.
A false conclusion drawn from a false premise and a false account.
> > Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
> Grow up!
You really think you can piss any higher?
> > You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
> > You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i apologists clearly don't give
> > a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly
makes
> > in regard another's relation to their faith.
> There is a lot that goes on here,
And you have your finger on the pulse of all theological/historical
trivia and a blind eye to all serious community issues.
> but, if you follow me around,
I follow you nowhere blind man.
>and insist,
Insist what?
>and, after I've looked into it,
Looked into what?
> and told you what I saw,
In relation to what? Joplins allegation or Susans? In either case I
never "followed" you nor "insisted" on anything.
> and you still want to lie about my POV,
How is quoting you a lie?
>eh, sometimes you get challenged.
Sometimes you just make incomprehensible noise Koli....as above.
> > Any lie, any slander, any
> > viscous crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is
perceived
> > to
> > be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person
enemy.
> Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
> person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey dokey?
Pat...That's about as sophisticated as the primary school- "Yea! I
know what 'you' are!...but what am I" .
I have already proved the Baha'i apologist tribal alliance
preparedness
to let any attack on a non person Baha'i go unchallenged....and I did
so
with the support of the thread links you provided.
> > It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
> > allegations
> > that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
> > provide tacit
> > support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
> > Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
> Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
> fantasies, where things get 'tacit.
Like Susan you have mastered the art of employing language to convey
no information. I put before you the reality of your preparedness to
cosset the likes of Joplin and you have nothing of substance to
contribute.
> In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being
a
> cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
> out your hypocritical lies,
"Now you're associating him with a cross dresser, an alcoholic
cannibal, and
a hypocrite, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
> please quote from this message.
When I'm finished rubbing your nose in your prior posts Kiddyfiddler.
> I find your inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
> decontextualized.
Perhaps you need to adjust your spin cycle on your post modernist
white washing machine.
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
If you don't like it don't write it.
All Bad
"303" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9997f662-989e-4702...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
whether you do or don't have Jewish ancestors, the fact is that you've
variously taken mutually exclusive positions and recently you've lied about
lying about it. You lie systematically.
- All Bad
The Blue Fiddle
"Death to Haifan Bahaism" <deathto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:04b48102-386a-4001...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >Baha'u'llah is the inheritor of the Bayan.
>
Delusions of divinity yet again .... ye gods, the wee white mice are working
overtime tonight.
Have you ever thought of having a colonic irrigation ... to refresh your
mind?
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12b5e67b-c19d-44ee...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Sweetie, don't flatter yourself!
> I don't. That was a fact.
But isn't anymore
> > > You scumbag don't own trb.
> >
> > Correct ... you scumbag don't own TRB ... I do recall however that it is
> > Talk.Religion.Bahai not Banyani. Ergo if you want to do Banyani go form
> > your
> > own group.
> You are blind too.
Nope ... I've been to Specsavers
> The discussion was related directly to what I
> responded.
> I will post where I want.
Way to go ... just don't expect responses of the variety you crave.
> Now, cry yourself to death.
With you sweetie ... absolutely no risk of that. Laugh myself to death ...
now, that's a possibility.
> > I have no Gods!
> Sure you do. Don't try to wipe your footprints. They are everywhere.
Geez Steffie ... you know it's statements like that really do enhance your
reputation as a complete dork. When I say "I have no Gods," I have no Gods.
Capiche? You are in no position to see into my mind and divine otherwise.
If you had the courtesy to accept what folk say, instead of contradicting
them, you might find somebody who'll talk to you.
> I came on board to tell Pauline that next time he quotes a Bahai
> claim, he is up for a big smack real hard.
That's it sweetie ... go smack the pony ... you'll feel more like yourself!
Who knows ... you might even go on a voyage of self discovery and come to
know what you are!
> Take a god damn look at your posts and show mw one where you were able
> to reason with evidence?
If you ever come up with independently corroborated evidence I'll reason
with it. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not holding my breath.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e21ba01-3c72-471b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On > SB: Right!! Nice U turn!
> >
> > PK: He's been flying straight and level, though you can't see that.
> Sure I can see that. He didn't like what boomeranged on him.
Have you morphed into a boomerang ... and wound up right back where you
started?
> What inflammatory question?
Got a light?
The Blue Fiddle
> On Jul 7, 10:19 am, "The Blue Fiddle"
> <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> you haven't got what it takes to rile
>> a t'ick Mick!
>
> He already has...
As big an ego as you though, granted, somewhat more of a solid foundation
for it.
He'd vastly improve if removed from your malevolent influence.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca5b1315-d505-4427...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> You made your u turn when you realised you made a flying fart of
> Husayn-Ali.
Steffi ... you're the flying fart around here and Nimikins is the
accompanying odour.
> You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> zombies.
Could somebody translate this? Firstly he says they told me then he says
they didn't and they didn't tell anybody else either ad finally it all comes
as a shock.
I sure does ... I didn't realise that morbidity in intelligence had reached
epidemic proportions on TRB.. Fortunately it seems limited to the Banyanis.
>> Face facts - the war twixt Banyanis and Bahais was fought and lost years
>> ago
> ... and your lot lost. <
>
> Look arsehole.
You wanna look at mine? Or do you want me to look at Nimikins one ... surely
not yours?
Or maybe there's an imperative in this as in " Look (over there) arsehole
(Nimikins is coming)!"
Husayn-Ali and his ignorant followers will have always
> been the losers and will always be.
> Your 7 Millions Zombies are not worth one.
Worth one what? Do try to concentrate.
>> You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
> As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> language he understands long time ago.
I see no evidemnce of that
>> probably learned it from Nimikins ...
> Nop. See Hammond.
So nimikins is not as bright as he thinks he is?
>> or is it endemic to Banyanis.
> No, it is called individual customisation.
I like to see individuals customised to the purpose in hand.
>> Don't answer that ...
> Too late. I already did.
More fool you.
>> Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
> the way you present it.
> You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
> record.
> My presentation is customised to the individuals.
I can see that ... you insult those who don't agree with you or accept what
you say.
You're a sectarian bigot
>> Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
> I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
> vocabulary.
Disabuse yourself of that notion ... it is specious and groundless.
> You still have not answered my question?
Yes I have!
> What was your argument with me when you first started to drag yourself
> into this discussion?
I really do hate to see people display their ignorance ... I have this
belief that those who are sectarian bigots really ought to have the good
grace to keep that to themselves.
> It is obvious that you know nothing of Bahaism
> either which explains why you were once.
This is pure drivel Steffie. It is obvious that you know nothing of decorum
or good manners which explains why you fail to impress hereabouts.
> What do you care if I responded to Hammond? Were you concerned about
> the integrity of TRB to be a forum for Bahais?
Well ... let's put it like this ... you get a higher more coherent standard
of drivel from Bahais than you get from Banyanis.. They also tend to be a
lot less arrogant and have a better sense of huimour. The only joke to have
come from the Banyanis is Nimikins ... and you.
PaulHammond
I'm sure I've been through this with you before.
Here's a little exercise for you.
Distinguish between the two statements below:
a) All Baha'is are Liars
b) All Liars are Baha'is.
The second one is the one you are asserting in your response here.
I'll let you in on a secret - *that* version does not imply that
anyone who is Baha'i is automatically a liar - the set of all liars
could be a proper subset of the set of Baha'is.
Paul
PaulHammond
---Here's a nice screed for you---
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
http://www.lowgenius.net/kookway.htm
TEH WAY OF THE K00K
Never learn from your mistakes.
Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right.
Always pick on those smarter and tougher than you.
Always believe that only you know the TRVTH.
Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good k00k.
When being overwhelmed by logic and reason: k00ksuit!
If you are going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs.
When caught in a lie: LIE!
When in doubt: Order the Crab Won Ton
Plagiarism is your friend. Use it.
Whenever contradicted; morph, start calling people names, and make
false
accusations. Include the children of your target in your allegations,
even if they don't have any.
(06-Jun-05) When nobody else will listen, post to your own fan group.
(06-Jun-05) Obviously, since you have your own fan group, this must
mean
that you have fans. Post prolifically to your fan group - you
wouldn't
want to disappoint them!
(10-May-2005)Everyone reads usenet. Approval here means approval
everywhere.
Post numerous blank posts, or posts containing only a message id.
Post numerous copy&paste web articles from crackerpot websites.
Never forget to call kookologists "k00ks."
If there are several, call them "sockpuppets" too
When all else fails, accuse various and sundry kookologists of e-
mailing
viruses to you. This is a sure-fire method of garnering sympathy and
ensuring that the General Public will always see things your way. An
especially effective sub-strategy here is to accuse them of infecting
you with the 'Sasser' worm via e-mail.
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they
approve the drivel you are writing!
(9-Jul-05) Anytime your computer is infected with a virus, bogged
down
by spyware, attacked over your internet connection, or otherwise
suffers
from preventable problems, government agencies are responsible and
are
trying to silence you and are monitoring your computer files.
Ignore all traffic signs and feel free to trespass, you don't have to
obey any rules.
Scare your enemies with lawsuits, police escorts and whines.
Always back up your empty (albeit noisy) threats with phony LARTs,
false
police reports, and harassing letters to the FBI and other gubbermint
agencies.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the
more
likely others will believe you!
If you can't find anyone as crazy as yourself to support you in the
flamewars you start with the normal population, create sock puppets
and
use anonymous remailers that shamelessly hang on every word you
write.
(17-Mar-05) When dealing with law enforcement, remember that it is
they
who have the problem, not you. Be sure to inform them of this at
every
available opportunity, as they will surely appreciate your
constructive
criticism. Be sure to make them aware that YOU KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
("The
cops like that, when people know their rights. That way they don't
have
to read them to you on the way to the station." - George Carlin)
The more your fake personalities adulate you, the more respect you'll
get!
When confronted with a reality that you don't like: Announce loudly
that you are departing, never to return as long as there's an
Internet.
Come back in three or four days and claim you were drunk, hacked,
abducted by alience, or forged. Alternately you can just not even
mention your prior departure, and if anyone asks you about it, either
ignore them or respond with something along the lines of "YOUR NOT
THE
BOSS OF ME! *PLONK*!" People really know you mean business then.
Always remain clueproof.
(20-Mar-05) Anyone who does not believe that you are the
reincarnation
of [$DEITY_OR_PROPHET] is obviously an infidel lacking in faith whose
soul in in peril of everlasting damnation.
When responding to one line challenges, post paragraphs of rants and
screed in response.
Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting.
Neither is illiteracy.
Delusions poasted often enough become fact.
Claim you will destroy <insert newsfroup> for attacking you.
When spnaked, send cmsg for Fanboi newsfroup(s).
Find your Lame, Use your Lame, Be your Lame!
Post Edit when the TRVTH hurts.
Always sneck the offending newsfroups.
Always poast pictures of yourself so you can be admired in all your
k00ky
glory.
Always accuse others of the very acts you are guilty of.
Post lots of boasts about your high IQ and incredible talents.
(20-Mar-05) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Anybody who fails to understand this is engaged in a deliberate
campaign
of misinformation and character assassination.
Always <plonk> somebody just before replying the plonkee!
The k00k considers itself the most intelligent person in any
conversation, possibly on the planet. Other people are benighted and
ignorant, and have been waiting their whole lives for the k00k to
rescue
them from intellectual darkness.
Write a self-published book and claim it a success. Bonus points for
comparing it to "Mein Kampf" and/or the Bible.
Declare yourself equal to a deity of your choice.
Claim that you've come from other planets.
Claim thousands of past lives.
Frothing complaints carry far more weight when you send them from
"legal@" some domain.
Nothing strikes terror into the hearts of your detractors more than
telling them that you're archiving their messages for possible use in
the future.
Never forget that everyone else posting to Usenet is a paid
disinformation agent looking to discredit you.
Usenet is governed by US law. If a poster in Romania killfiles you,
he's
obviously violating your 1st Amendment rights and can be sued.
Every news admin in the world hangs out in NANAU, and they're just
dying
to nuke the account of that meanyhead who just called you
"fucknozzle".
Drop 'em a line - that's what they're there for, after all.
AUK will be closed down. Just you wait and see.
They've nuked hundreds of accounts in the name of free speech and
*yours* will be next.
The k00k will, without any trace of irony, lie, manipulate,
impersonate,
censor, and declare themselves powerful in ways ranging from the
ability
to have an account shut down to being God Herself, in order to
convince
people that they are not liars, manipulators, censors, or insane.
Abuse women while telling how many hundreds you've loved. Nevermind
that
you're one ugly motherfucker and that there were 30,000 femininas
that
thought you were a scumbag with bad teeth.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.
Do not neglect to poast your responses to forums that the originator
doesn't read. This will make the people in that forum very impressed
with how you tear him to shreds without him being able to respond.
They
like it even better if you are off-topic for that forum.
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory
actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
(06-Oct-05) When spanked, always retreat to the safety of the Ad
Hominem.
(04-Aug-2005) When spanked mercilessly for days on end, proving with
each poast just what an illiterate and ignorant fool you are, ALWAYS
claim ownership of [person(s),froup(s)]. This works on so many
levels.
It inspires dread in your opponents that they will no longer be able
to
poast in their home froup and that they will eventually have to pay
rent, to name just two.
Any problems with your poasts are the fault of the konspirators, who
are
trying to stop you from preventing the extinction of humanity.
Konspiracies that are able to subvert whole governments are always
unable
to silence konspiracy ko0ks.
The entire United States government is willing to spend millions of
dollars for the sole purpose of harassing you.
Hollywood is making movies based on your personal life.
Do not consult psychiatrists or other mental health professionals.
They
are part of the konspiracy, and will sedate you and lock you away and
keep you drugged if you tell them the truth.
Numerology and Astrology are respectable sciences and are useful for
proving your case.
Everyone is Tim Hill, or David Green, or...
There is a fine line between trolling and kookery. Find that line and
cross it repeatedly. When you are killfiled and/or LARTed for
net.abuse
as a result, claim victory. If you lose multiple accounts, this
merely
proves that you are indeed a world-class troll, with a black-belt in
manipulation.
If you respond to every post someone else makes, they're obsessed. If
they respond to less than 1% of your posts, they're even more
obsessed.
Publishing people's real names, addresses, and phone numbers when
there's no other way for you to come out of a flamewar with any
dignity
is cool, and proves that you are a master of secret internet
information
stores, and absolutely not to be fucked with.
Everyone is out to get you. You can put a stop to this by telling
everyone that they're out to get you at every available opportunity.
You are the only sane one.
Those that give you a hard time about morally bankrupt things you
yourself admit to are just persecutioners of the new inquisition.
Yelling in all caps and cursing at your detractors is debate. Your
detractors laughing at you with sarcastic remarks is obvious anger
and
jealousy.
If doing something results in the loss of your account, legal
hassles,
or blunt trauma injury, do it again. It always works better the
second
time.
Asterisks, lots and lots of Asterisks.
Poking holes in kookscreed is stalking, and is a felony.
K00ks LOVE to "connect the dots". They are, of course, dots that only
the k00k can see.
"They laughed at Einstein, too!"
PaulHammond
(Dermod)
>
> go argue with people who are interested in matters banyani. I'm not
> interested. You cannot seem to get that message into your minuscule
> mind. <
>
(Steve)
> You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> zombies.
1) you still haven't got the message. 2) Calling *Dermod* a Baha'i is
even more laughable than calling me one. I still have a sympathy or
three left with the Baha'i world view. Dermod lost even that a long
time ago. you're making yourself look ridiculous by swallowing Nima's
shit and calling it chocolate.
> > You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
>
> As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> language he understands long time ago.
>
It's funny that - I was thinking precisely the same thing about you
when you dragged yourself into this discussion you have nothing to do
with on the instructions of Nima.
Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
words give you a bit of trouble.
So this year I restricted myself to words of one syllable in dealing
with you.
>
> > Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
>
> the way you present it.
> You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
> record.
> My presentation is customised to the individuals.
>
He's right. Nobody is interested.
> > Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
>
> I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
> vocabulary.
>
Oh, I think we all understood that you were suggesting he liked
talking dirty here because he wasn't getting enough attention from his
wife at home.
NOw, there's using a few choice swearwords, and then there's being
truly vulgar.
But anyone who's willing to take an argument to that level doesn't
deserve treating with any respect.
Paul
The Blue Fiddle
> On Jul 7, 7:57 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Didn't I already tell you to fuck off once?
>
> And haven't we told you to go FUCK YOURSELF a thousand times?
Sounds far too tiring ....!
The Blue Fiddle
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:1e06dce1-279f-49a2...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
> words give you a bit of trouble.
> So this year I restricted myself to words of one syllable in dealing
> with you.
Wildly optimistic but well done for trying!
303
wrote:
> Lying is your practice. BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
Sorry, I am not a Bahaim like you are, so there's your fallacy exposed
(and documented by Rod Wicks below).
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12b5e67b-c19d-44ee...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Sweetie, don't flatter yourself!
> > I don't. That was a fact.
>
> But isn't anymore
>
> > > > You scumbag don't own trb.
>
> > > Correct ... you scumbag don't own TRB ... I do recall however that it is
> > > Talk.Religion.Bahai not Banyani. Ergo if you want to do Banyani go form
> > > your
> > > own group.
> > You are blind too.
>
> Nope ... I've been to Specsavers
>
> > The discussion was related directly to what I
> > responded.
> > I will post where I want.
>
> Way to go ... just don't expect responses of the variety you crave.
Well! I can only feed you with what your friend Pauline offers to
others.
Fuck you. Go somewhere where they can satisfy your craves.
>
> > Now, cry yourself to death.
>
> With you sweetie ... absolutely no risk of that. Laugh myself to death ...
> now, that's a possibility.
You would say that. What I have got to tell Husayn-Alists leaves
nothing to laugh about.
>
> > > I have no Gods!
> > Sure you do. Don't try to wipe your footprints. They are everywhere.
>
> Geez Steffie ... you know it's statements like that really do enhance your
> reputation as a complete dork. When I say "I have no Gods," I have no Gods.
What the f..ck are you doing here. Go and join noGods group.
> Capiche? You are in no position to see into my mind and divine otherwise.
> If you had the courtesy to accept what folk say, instead of contradicting
> them, you might find somebody who'll talk to you.
What the f..ck are you weining about? Agree with what? Who?
>
> > I came on board to tell Pauline that next time he quotes a Bahai
> > claim, he is up for a big smack real hard.
>
> That's it sweetie ... go smack the pony ... you'll feel more like yourself!
> Who knows ... you might even go on a voyage of self discovery and come to
> know what you are!
You must be high on drugs. You had no answer to what I said. That is
noted.
>
> > Take a god damn look at your posts and show mw one where you were able
> > to reason with evidence?
>
> If you ever come up with independently corroborated evidence I'll reason
> with it. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not holding my breath.
Independence? In this partcular case, all I had to do was to highlight
what was missed. That is just a lousy excuse. You have never had
anything to say.
Oh! tell me! Did Pauline have an independent "corroborated evidence"?
You do sound like a Bahai?
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9e21ba01-3c72-471b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On > SB: Right!! Nice U turn!
>
>
>
> > > PK: He's been flying straight and level, though you can't see that.
> > Sure I can see that. He didn't like what boomeranged on him.
>
> Have you morphed into a boomerang ... and wound up right back where you
> started?
>
> > What inflammatory question?
>
> Got a light?
Until then, get lost.
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca5b1315-d505-4427...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You made your u turn when you realised you made a flying fart of
> > Husayn-Ali.
>
> Steffi ... you're the flying fart around here and Nimikins is the
> accompanying odour.
Oh! Did I hurt your religious feelings. Well! You brought it upon
Husayn-Ali. Well Done Dead Weed!
Make sure you don't bump into him in hell, otherwise he is going to
feed you to the Salmani.
>
> > You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> > Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> > tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> > So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> > zombies.
>
> Could somebody translate this? Firstly he says they told me then he says
> they didn't and they didn't tell anybody else either ad finally it all comes
> as a shock.
Stop the ra ra. You gobsmacked the foundation of Husayn-Ali's bogus
claim bu rubbishing the cause on which he stood.
>
> I sure does ... I didn't realise that morbidity in intelligence had reached
> epidemic proportions on TRB.. Fortunately it seems limited to the Banyanis.
It just happens that the Bayanis are at odds with Pauline the non-
Bahai permanent supporter of Bahais and his monkies which would
include you.
>
> >> Face facts - the war twixt Banyanis and Bahais was fought and lost years
> >> ago
> > ... and your lot lost. <
>
> > Look arsehole.
>
> You wanna look at mine? Or do you want me to look at Nimikins one ... surely
You are being full of ra ra ..
> not yours?
>
> Or maybe there's an imperative in this as in " Look (over there) arsehole
> (Nimikins is coming)!"
>
> Husayn-Ali and his ignorant followers will have always
>
> > been the losers and will always be.
> > Your 7 Millions Zombies are not worth one.
>
> Worth one what? Do try to concentrate.
Let me clarify: 6 Million Bahais are not worth .5 Bayani.
>
> >> You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
> > As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> > discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> > didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> > language he understands long time ago.
>
> I see no evidemnce of that
You are either a lying fart or were born yesterday. Look for past
threads.
>
> >> probably learned it from Nimikins ...
> > Nop. See Hammond.
>
> So nimikins is not as bright as he thinks he is?
ra ra.
>
> >> or is it endemic to Banyanis.
> > No, it is called individual customisation.
>
> I like to see individuals customised to the purpose in hand.
>
> >> Don't answer that ...
> > Too late. I already did.
>
> More fool you.
ra ra ..
>
> >> Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
> > the way you present it.
> > You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
> > record.
> > My presentation is customised to the individuals.
>
> I can see that ... you insult those who don't agree with you or accept what
> you say.
I insulted you because that is what you did and draged yourself into
what had nothing to do with you.
>
> You're a sectarian bigot
You have a big mouth and a tiny ity bity brain.
>
> >> Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
> > I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
> > vocabulary.
>
> Disabuse yourself of that notion ... it is specious and groundless.
So, you changed your mind, I am vapable of abusing you!
Make up your mind!
>
> > You still have not answered my question?
>
> Yes I have!
Your non-response is noted yet again.
>
> > What was your argument with me when you first started to drag yourself
> > into this discussion?
>
> I really do hate to see people display their ignorance ... I have this
> belief that those who are sectarian bigots really ought to have the good
What intelligence did you use to judge that my comments were "out of
ignorance". You have no clue of the theology or history of Bahaism or
the cause it stands on being Bayan.
Just because I disagreed with your friend Pauline, wasn't it?
> grace to keep that to themselves.
>
> > It is obvious that you know nothing of Bahaism
> > either which explains why you were once.
>
> This is pure drivel Steffie. It is obvious that you know nothing of decorum
> or good manners which explains why you fail to impress hereabouts.
Look dumb, I am not here to impress you. You are Dead Weed.
You have shown no indication of being even willing to enter into
anything but mud slinging.
>
> > What do you care if I responded to Hammond? Were you concerned about
> > the integrity of TRB to be a forum for Bahais?
>
> Well ... let's put it like this ... you get a higher more coherent standard
> of drivel from Bahais than you get from Banyanis.. They also tend to be a
> lot less arrogant and have a better sense of huimour. The only joke to have
> come from the Banyanis is Nimikins ... and you.
All I can gather here is that you didn't like me disagreeing with
Bahais.
The rest of it is bullshit.
Keep it up with Pauline.
bayani....@gmail.com
> On 7 Jul, 03:51, bayani.belie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (Dermod)
>
>
>
> > go argue with people who are interested in matters banyani. I'm not
> > interested. You cannot seem to get that message into your minuscule
> > mind. <
>
> (Steve)
> > You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> > Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> > tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> > So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> > zombies.
>
> 1) you still haven't got the message.
2) Calling *Dermod* a Baha'i is
> even more laughable than calling me one. I still have a sympathy or
> three left with the Baha'i world view. Dermod lost even that a long
> time ago. you're making yourself look ridiculous by swallowing Nima's
> shit and calling it chocolate.
I think I have clarifies this many times before. I take your words not
being a registered Bahai (anymore). What I have said is that given you
repeat the same claims that Bahais make and you like them have no
proof for them and you like them have no interest in changing your
positions even when you no longer can defend them make you to be for
all its purpose as good as a Bahai to me. You may not consider
yourselves Bahais and I know that but for me you are the same thing.
>
> > > You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
>
> > As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> > discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> > didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> > language he understands long time ago.
>
> It's funny that - I was thinking precisely the same thing about you
> when you dragged yourself into this discussion you have nothing to do
> with on the instructions of Nima.
I joined in not because of Nima, nor because of you. I stepped in
because you said something that I believe had no truth and related to
the cause of Bayan and that is how it concerns me.
Dead Weed still has not said why he dragged himself in. All I could
gather from him was that I was not very nice to you. You don't think
so, do you?
>
> Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
> words give you a bit of trouble.
You need to take a good look at the words you uttered while having
Whisky.
>
> So this year I restricted myself to words of one syllable in dealing
> with you.
So, you are not going to be abusive again? I welcome that.
>
>
>
> > > Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
>
> > the way you present it.
> > You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
> > record.
> > My presentation is customised to the individuals.
>
> He's right. Nobody is interested.
I know that ver well. In particlar Bahais. Husayn-Ali was not
interested either. But, we will tell you and Bahais for the rest of
the Bahai 500,000 years.
>
> > > Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
>
> > I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
> > vocabulary.
>
> Oh, I think we all understood that you were suggesting he liked
> talking dirty here because he wasn't getting enough attention from his
> wife at home.
That is your interpretation. Boy, you are nasty!
>
> NOw, there's using a few choice swearwords, and then there's being
> truly vulgar.
See above.
>
> But anyone who's willing to take an argument to that level doesn't
> deserve treating with any respect.
>
I don't have to tell you that you know what you have been up against
so far. Save distributing your nicety! The only ones who get your
rispekt are the Bahais. I am not.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:088ba880-2dd9-4e21...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > > PK: He's been flying straight and level, though you can't see that.
> > Sure I can see that. He didn't like what boomeranged on him.
>
> Have you morphed into a boomerang ... and wound up right back where you
> started?
SB Stop mirroring yourself on others.
TBF Wouldn't dream of it ... besides it's illegal if not fattening.
> > What inflammatory question?
>
> Got a light?
SB Use your glasses and tell me what was the inflammatory question.
TBF The "inflammatory question'" was a bit of irony. No! It's nothing to do
with metalurgy! Ask Mimikins! On second thoughts, don't! He doesn't
understand it either!
SBUntil then, get lost.
TBF No need for that! I've done it!
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f484e9f3-e776-4d8f...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:46 am, "The Blue Fiddle"
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12b5e67b-c19d-44ee...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Sweetie, don't flatter yourself!
> > I don't. That was a fact.
>
> But isn't anymore
TBF Good advice. Follow it!
> > The discussion was related directly to what I
> > responded.
> > I will post where I want.
>
> Way to go ... just don't expect responses of the variety you crave.
SB Well! I can only feed you with what your friend Pauline offers to
others.
TBF Are you his parrot? Does he know? Does he agree? Will he pay the
veterinary bills?
SB Fuck you.
TBF You really do need to go to a charm school. With an attitude like
that, nobody is going to pay a blind bit of notice to you ... unless to take
the michael.
SBGo somewhere where they can satisfy your craves.
TBF I was here long before you ever waltzed in like manna from heaven.
>
> > Now, cry yourself to death.
>
> With you sweetie ... absolutely no risk of that. Laugh myself to death ...
> now, that's a possibility.
SB You would say that. What I have got to tell Husayn-Alists leaves
nothing to laugh about.
TBF No point in saying that to me. I don't give a rat's arse what you want
to tell these people. But they ain't going to discuss the matter with a
nasty wee shite like you or Mimikins.
>
> > > I have no Gods!
> > Sure you do. Don't try to wipe your footprints. They are everywhere.
>
> Geez Steffie ... you know it's statements like that really do enhance your
> reputation as a complete dork. When I say "I have no Gods," I have no
> Gods.
SB What the f..ck are you doing here.
TBF Kicking arse off arrogant gobshites like you and Mimikins. It's my
obligatory good deed for the day
SB Go and join noGods group.
TBF On your say-so? No feckin' fear of that!
> Capiche? You are in no position to see into my mind and divine otherwise.
> If you had the courtesy to accept what folk say, instead of contradicting
> them, you might find somebody who'll talk to you.
SB What the f..ck are you weining about? Agree with what? Who?
TBF Steffie - you really need to learn to comprehend what has been written
before ....
>
> > I came on board to tell Pauline that next time he quotes a Bahai
> > claim, he is up for a big smack real hard.
>
> That's it sweetie ... go smack the pony ... you'll feel more like
> yourself!
> Who knows ... you might even go on a voyage of self discovery and come to
> know what you are!
SB You must be high on drugs. You had no answer to what I said. That is
noted.
TBF I commented on what you said. Anybody can see that ... apart from you
... but that's your problem
>
> > Take a god damn look at your posts and show mw one where you were able
> > to reason with evidence?
>
> If you ever come up with independently corroborated evidence I'll reason
> with it. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not holding my breath.
SB Independence? In this partcular case, all I had to do was to highlight
what was missed.
TBF So why didn't you do it?
SB That is just a lousy excuse.
TBF For your sectarian bigotry ... indeed it is!
SB You have never had
anything to say.
TBF What you are saying is that because I don't agree with/bow down
before/worship/fawn over you and whatever message you have (which nobody
sees) I have nothing worthwhile to say. All sectarian bigots say that -
such is the limitation of their cranial faculties that they cannot perceive
why anybody could not see and agree with the particular, sectional 'truth'
that they are selling.
SB Oh! tell me! Did Pauline have an independent "corroborated evidence"?
TBF You need to ask him ... should be easy as you claimed to be his parrot.
SB You do sound like a Bahai?
TBF Are they as clever as me? Wow!
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca4a8b33-6077-42fc...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 7:06 am, "The Blue Fiddle"
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca5b1315-d505-4427...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You made your u turn when you realised you made a flying fart of
> > Husayn-Ali.
>
> Steffi ... you're the flying fart around here and Nimikins is the
> accompanying odour.
SB Oh! Did I hurt your religious feelings.
TBF Not in the least ... I don't have religious feelings about you or
Mimikins.
SB Well! You brought it upon
Husayn-Ali. Well Done Dead Weed!
TBF Who's Husayn-Ali? Should I know him?
SB Make sure you don't bump into him in hell, otherwise he is going to
feed you to the Salmani.
TBF Surely, in light of your views about him, you'll precede me to that
terrible fate
>
> > You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> > Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> > tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> > So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> > zombies.
>
> Could somebody translate this? Firstly he says they told me then he says
> they didn't and they didn't tell anybody else either ad finally it all
> comes
> as a shock.
SB Stop the ra ra. You gobsmacked the foundation of Husayn-Ali's bogus
claim bu rubbishing the cause on which he stood.
TBF So, if I get you right, I have destroyed a bogus claim made by this
Husayn Ali chappie. Well to be honest ... that's the first I've heard of
that. Modesty forbids my taking credit for something I have no recollection
of doing. You'll need to find some other champion.
BTW who is this Husayn Ali chappie and what was the claim? And do tell me,
how did I achieve all this without realising it? Am I that good?
> I sure does ... I didn't realise that morbidity in intelligence had
> reached
> epidemic proportions on TRB.. Fortunately it seems limited to the
> Banyanis.
SB It just happens that the Bayanis are at odds with Pauline the non-
Bahai permanent supporter of Bahais and his monkies which would
include you.
TBF What! All of the two Banyanis in the world are at odds with Paul and
moi ... instead of the Bahais. Now don't that make them look real sill!
> >> Face facts - the war twixt Banyanis and Bahais was fought and lost
> >> years
> >> ago
> > ... and your lot lost. <
>
> > Look arsehole.
>
> You wanna look at mine? Or do you want me to look at Nimikins one ...
> surely
SB You are being full of ra ra ..
TBF And you dodged the point!
> not yours?
>
> Or maybe there's an imperative in this as in " Look (over there) arsehole
> (Nimikins is coming)!"
>
> Husayn-Ali and his ignorant followers will have always
>
> > been the losers and will always be.
> > Your 7 Millions Zombies are not worth one.
>
> Worth one what? Do try to concentrate.
SB Let me clarify: 6 Million Bahais are not worth .5 Bayani.
TBF Look, I know there's a recession but that's a hell of an unrealistically
inflated rate of exchange. In a half decent rush the collective flab (mental
and physical) of 6 million Bahais would liquidise two Banyanis into a rather
unpleasant consomme.
Rest of interminably boring and painfully unintelligible rant flushed
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7266f1ea-0403-4df1...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
> words give you a bit of trouble.
Whisky.
TBF Paul and I are both fond of an odd tipple of the uisce beatha. Strangely
your posts show more indication of being drafted under "the affluence of
incohol' than any of ours. Mebbe you should find out what brand we drink and
buy a case for yourself!
Though you don't deserve it, I shall share with you the True Verses of the
Holy Water. (Editor's Note - the divine liquid is also known as poitin
(rendered in English as poteen) and the cratur') It may confidently be
asserted that indulgence in the divine liquor does naught to dim or dampen
the intellect. The more perceptive reader may wish to compare the
quintessential perfection of these verses (written under the influence of
and inspired by the holy water) with very poor work submitted by a poster
hereabouts who was working under some inferior influence or potation and had
aspirations to divinity.
Let your quacks and newspapers be cuttin' their capers
And curing the vapours the scratch and the gout
With their medical potions, their serums and lotions
Upholding their notions, they're mighty put out.
Who can tell the true physic of all things pathetic
And pitch to the devil, cramp, colic and spleen
You'll know it I think if you take a big drink
With your mouth to the brink of a jug of poteen
So stick to the cratur' the best thing in nature
For sinking your sorrows and raising your joys
Oh what moderation gives hope to a nation
Or brings consolation like poteen me boys.
No liquid cosmetic to lovers athletic
Or ladies pathetic can give such a bloom
As the sweet by the powers in the garden of flowers
E'er gave their own bowers such a darling perfume
And this liquid so rare if you willingly share
To be taking your hair when it's frizzled and dead
Oh the sod has the merit to yield the true spirit
So strong it will shake all the hairs from your head
Then stick to the cratur' the best thing in nature
For sinking your sorrows and raising your joys
Oh since its perfection, no doctor's direction
Can cleanse the complexion like poteen me boys
As a child in me cradle, me nurse with her ladle
Was filling her throat with a notion of Pep
When a drop from her bottle fell into my throttle
I stumbled and capered clean out of her lap
On the floor I lay crawlin' and screaming and bawling
'Til me mother and father were called to the fore
All sobbing and sighing they feared I was dying
But soon found I only was crying for more.
So stick to the cratur' the best thing in nature
For sinking your sorrows and raising your joys
Oh lord how they'd chuckle if babes in their truckle
Only could suckle on poteen me boys
Through my youthful digression, through times of depression
My childhood's impression still clung to my mind
And at school or at college the basis of knowledge
I never could gulp 'til with whiskey combined
And as older I'm growing time's ever bestowin'
On Erin's potation, a flavour so fine
And how ere they may lecture 'bout Jove and his nectar
Itself is the only true liquid divine
So stick to the cratur' the best thing in nature
For sinking your sorrows and raising your joys
Oh lord, 'tis the right thing for courting and fighting
There's nowt so exciting as poteen me boys.
Come guess me this riddle, what beats pipes and fiddle
What's hotter than mustard and milder than cream
What best wets your whistle, what's clearer than crystal
What's sweeter than honey and stronger than steam
What'll make the lame walk, what will make the dumb talk,
What's the elixir of life and philospher's stone
And what helped Mr. Brunel to dig the Thames Tunnel
Wasn't it whiskey, me boys, from old Inishowen
So stick to the cratur' the best thing in nature
For sinking your sorrows and raising your joys
Oh lord, it's no wonder, if lightning and thunder
Weren't made from the plunder of whiskey me boys.
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> (Dermod)
>
>
>
> > go argue with people who are interested in matters banyani. I'm not
> > interested. You cannot seem to get that message into your minuscule
> > mind. <
>
> (Steve)
> > You dumb arse must have been told when you first became a Bahai that
> > Husayn-Ali's bogus claim was entirely based on Bayan. But they didn't
> > tell you that. Neither they said that to the other 7 millions.
> > So, it comes to you ignorants as a shock and makes you look like
> > zombies.
>
> 1) you still haven't got the message.
Sure I got your message. You had a short fall on reason and response
to what I said in response to your Bahai claim. And that is well
noted.
2) Calling *Dermod* a Baha'i is
> even more laughable than calling me one. I still have a sympathy or
> three left with the Baha'i world view. Dermod lost even that a long
> time ago. you're making yourself look ridiculous by swallowing Nima's
> shit and calling it chocolate.
I think I have clarifies this many times before. I take your words not
being a registered Bahai (anymore). What I have said is that given you
repeat the same claims that Bahais make and you like them have no
proof for them and you like them have no interest in changing your
positions even when you no longer can defend them make you to be for
all its purpose as good as a Bahai to me. You may not consider
yourselves Bahais and I know that but for me you are the same thing.
>
> > > You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
>
> > As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> > discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> > didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> > language he understands long time ago.
>
> It's funny that - I was thinking precisely the same thing about you
> when you dragged yourself into this discussion you have nothing to do
> with on the instructions of Nima.
>
I joined in not because of Nima, nor because of you. I stepped in
because you said something that I believe had no truth and related to
the cause of Bayan and that is how it concerns me.
Dead Weed still has not said why he dragged himself in. All I could
gather from him was that I was not very nice to you. You don't think
so, do you?
> Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
> words give you a bit of trouble.
I had no trouble in putting you back in your electric chair. I could
here you frying and see the smoke.
>
> So this year I restricted myself to words of one syllable in dealing
> with you.
So, you are not going to be abusive again? I welcome that.
>
>
>
> > > Nobody is interested in your message ... largely because of
>
> > the way you present it.
> > You are wrong. My refutation of the Bahai bogus claims are on the
> > record.
> > My presentation is customised to the individuals.
>
> He's right. Nobody is interested.
I know that ver well. In particlar Bahais. Husayn-Ali was not
interested either. But, we will tell you and Bahais for the rest of
the Bahai 500,000 years.
>
> > > Sweetie, you can't teach me vulgar ...
>
> > I know that. But you don't seem to even cope with my limited
> > vocabulary.
>
> Oh, I think we all understood that you were suggesting he liked
> talking dirty here because he wasn't getting enough attention from his
> wife at home.
>
> NOw, there's using a few choice swearwords, and then there's being
> truly vulgar.
>
That is your interpretation. Boy, you are nasty!
> But anyone who's willing to take an argument to that level doesn't
> deserve treating with any respect.
I don't have to tell you that you know what you have been up against
so far. Save your respect, you are void of it! The only ones who get
bayani....@gmail.com
Look! I admit you are have excelled from being a Husayn-Alist. But you
don't seem to have recovered from its syptoms. You will continue to
show side effects such as longing for giving and taking vulgar and
even enjoy taking it. You still sypathize with those who smoked from
Husayn-Ali's drugs because you like to think you were not a complete
idiot and if you were there were at least 7 Millions like you.
I tried to help your condition but I seem to have aggrevated your
symptoms. So I do what I did to you Dead Weed a year ago again. I am
going to leave you to yourrself to gratify in self satisfaction and
enjoy your whatever nature of companionship you have with Pauline.
You must have realised so far that I could fill up the trb with
telling you how much of fuck arse dumb you are. But that makes you
want more and I have got better things to do that feed you with just
that.
I continue to shatter the corrupt foundations of this bogus invalid
sect from its roots as I have done before.
And you or Pauline can simply watch me and remain a zombie.
You may decide to ridicule yourself or ask me to return your vulgar. I
may or may not be tempted to do so, but the Point remains.
The Bayan and its testimonies are suffcient to make the 7 million
zombies who are even clueless to the foundation of their so called
"faith" worth nothing.
Now, see what you can find to make a fool of yourself. There you go!.
bayani....@gmail.com
Take a good fucking look at your once upon time profit:
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/BahaFamily/bahaFam1.html
He could pull your brain out of your skull with his bear hands if he
wanted to.
I forgot. He has already done it to you.
bayani....@gmail.com
Let me give you an anwer that will be applicable to anything you may
(not) have in future:
PaulHammond
> On Jul 8, 7:24 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > You have a real talent for getting up people's noses ..
>
> > > As far as you and I are concerned, you dragged yourself into a
> > > discussion which you say you have nothing to do with. You obviously
> > > didn't like my tone with Hammond. Let's say I have learned the
> > > language he understands long time ago.
>
> > It's funny that - I was thinking precisely the same thing about you
> > when you dragged yourself into this discussion you have nothing to do
> > with on the instructions of Nima.
>
> I joined in not because of Nima, nor because of you. I stepped in
> because you said something that I believe had no truth and related to
> the cause of Bayan and that is how it concerns me.
> Dead Weed still has not said why he dragged himself in. All I could
> gather from him was that I was not very nice to you. You don't think
> so, do you?
>
>
>
> > Last year, I tried talking properly to you. I realised that long
> > words give you a bit of trouble.
>
> You need to take a good look at the words you uttered while having
> Whisky.
>
> > So this year I restricted myself to words of one syllable in dealing
> > with you.
>
> So, you are not going to be abusive again? I welcome that.
>
In words of one syllable, this is what I have to say to you:
Fuck Off Steve.
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lick my arse! That is just to return you your favor. You just prove
every time that you opened your big mouth with making much use of your
very constrained brain.
That is what you did last year on the '19 years' and you were stuck
like a heay donkey in mud when I kept telling you that the 19 years
was referring to a future 'in Next Resurrection'.
Same thing happened again. I told you that the phrase 'one like you'
very clearly excludes someone like HWGSMM. The Mirror of the Point is
not like HWGSMM.
You went numb again.
Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
deserved.
You both piece of dirts talk about charm and things that have no
relevane to your characters and by that make an attempt to cover your
huge shortcoming.
Look Hammond! You sympathise with Bahais for personal or for other
reasons and I do not care but you simply like Dead Weed lack the very
basic understanding of the subject. For this reason, you keep coming
back to the something that you hope would offend me away. You are
mistaken.
Next time you make an attempt to parrot Bahai garbage, know this,
someone will make an axe of it and will split your head with it. Right
now you are bleeding.
I am sure you will come back again to do your job and I am righ there
to do mine.
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89fdb853-0ddf-4af3...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Rest of interminably boring and painfully unintelligible rant flushed
BB Take a good fucking look at your once upon time profit:
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/BahaFamily/bahaFam1.html
He could pull your brain out of your skull with his bear hands if he
wanted to.
TBF He'd only have to grab your ass to get at your brain
BB I forgot. He has already done it to you.
TBF If you haven't managed to do it, I wouldn't rate his chances either!
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc67642-89ee-4eb5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
BB Lick my arse!
TBF Does it taste good? Has Mimikins or anybody done consumer research on
that? Does it have a Michelin rating?
BB That is just to return you your favor. You just prove
every time that you opened your big mouth with making much use of your
very constrained brain.
That is what you did last year on the '19 years' and you were stuck
like a heay donkey in mud when I kept telling you that the 19 years
was referring to a future 'in Next Resurrection'.
Same thing happened again. I told you that the phrase 'one like you'
very clearly excludes someone like HWGSMM. The Mirror of the Point is
not like HWGSMM.
You went numb again.
TBF Has it penetrated your morsel of intelligence that we're not interested
in what you're saying. You are a pedant and utterly boring at that ... apart
from the fact that you try to be a bully and intimidate everybody who does
not drop the knee to your self-assumed air of superior knowledge
BB Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
deserved.
TBF Praise, adulation and the gratitude of the masses!
BB You both piece of dirts talk about charm and things that have no
relevane to your characters and by that make an attempt to cover your
huge shortcoming.
TBF There you go again ... insulting your readership. That's not the way to
get your message across. All you are going to get is what you deserve i.e
the piss taken out of you.
BB Look Hammond! You sympathise with Bahais for personal or for other
reasons and I do not care but you simply like Dead Weed lack the very
basic understanding of the subject.
TBF Once again you insult the intelligence of your readership.
BB For this reason, you keep coming
back to the something that you hope would offend me away. You are
mistaken.
TBF You really don't understand what's going on here!
BB Next time you make an attempt to parrot Bahai garbage, know this,
someone will make an axe of it and will split your head with it. Right
now you are bleeding.
TBF I don't think so somehow. But, at least, you're starting to show signs
that your methods don't work. So, is another Banyani coming out to impress
us? Have you got another Banyani?
BB I am sure you will come back again to do your job and I am righ there
to do mine.
TBF Good show! You've left a pile of mouse poop ... be a good chap and clean
it up on the way out ... and don't forget to close the door after you!
The Blue Fiddle
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bb47fba-de90-4135...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Just letting you know that I did not bother anything you wrote here.
A better test of an idiot I have yet to find.
Steff ... you have excelled yourself. This is spam of the highest order and
a quite magnificent admission of defeat.
Bye now!
PaulHammond
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9dc67642-89ee-4eb5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> TBF Has it penetrated your morsel of intelligence that we're not interested
> in what you're saying. You are a pedant and utterly boring at that ... apart
> from the fact that you try to be a bully and intimidate everybody who does
> not drop the knee to your self-assumed air of superior knowledge
>
> BB Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
> deserved.
>
> TBF Praise, adulation and the gratitude of the masses!
>
Oh, cheers Dermod! (or was he talking about you then - I might have
misunderstood, the way he tortures the language)
This is on the wrong thread now - I started this to take a near-random
piece of text and show Seon Ferguson what I was talking about when I
advised him that, if he was *interested* in finding out about the
history of Baha'u'llah's succession, and the way it was disputed by
Azali Babis - that he'd have to distinguish between mutually hostile
sources and make his own mind up about how far to believe such things
as bayanic.com.
In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
Wikipedia - my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
better chance of coming out looking good - hundreds of people want to
edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
The trouble with the Bab, Babi and minority Baha'i denomination pages
on Wikipedia is that, for the most part they are the preserve of three
or four heavily biased experts with huge enormorous axes to grind, and
the articles aren't noteworthy enough to either talented people with
the motivation to fix them, or experienced admins with the ability to
referee the conflicts productively.
Paul
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You ungrateful piece of shit.
I helped you to get to meet your (at least once) Master/Lord and this
is what I get for it!
That's it. I am not going to be helpful to you anymore.
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9dc67642-89ee-4eb5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> BB Lick my arse!
>
> TBF Does it taste good? Has Mimikins or anybody done consumer research on
> that? Does it have a Michelin rating?
Continue to lick Hammond's ass.
>
> BB That is just to return you your favor. You just prove
> every time that you opened your big mouth with making much use of your
> very constrained brain.
> That is what you did last year on the '19 years' and you were stuck
> like a heay donkey in mud when I kept telling you that the 19 years
> was referring to a future 'in Next Resurrection'.
> Same thing happened again. I told you that the phrase 'one like you'
> very clearly excludes someone like HWGSMM. The Mirror of the Point is
> not like HWGSMM.
> You went numb again.
>
> TBF Has it penetrated your morsel of intelligence that we're not interested
> in what you're saying. You are a pedant and utterly boring at that ... apart
> from the fact that you try to be a bully and intimidate everybody who does
> not drop the knee to your self-assumed air of superior knowledge
Has it penetrated into your skull that you don't interest me at all
because of the obvious fact that you are blank. My question still
stands. What is your fucking problem?
Why are you arguing with me! You are not interested in what I had to
say to Hammond? Fine! Get lost. And don't talk about 'everybody'
because you don't represent everybody.
I do claim that my knowledge is superior to yours and Hammond in
respect to the History and teachings of Bayan and Husayn-Alism. I am
not being arrogant here, I wish the situation was different and I
could have a more meaningful argument with you other than doing my
best to hurt you because you ask for it.
>
> BB Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
> deserved.
>
> TBF Praise, adulation and the gratitude of the masses!
It is thrue. The only reason whay you draged yourself into this was
because you fehlt Hammon was being accused of bullshiting.
>
> BB You both piece of dirts talk about charm and things that have no
> relevane to your characters and by that make an attempt to cover your
> huge shortcoming.
>
> TBF There you go again ... insulting your readership. That's not the way to
> get your message across. All you are going to get is what you deserve i.e
> the piss taken out of you.
Don't make any attempt to pretend you are anything cicilized! My
message to you is tailored to your needs.
>
> BB Look Hammond! You sympathise with Bahais for personal or for other
> reasons and I do not care but you simply like Dead Weed lack the very
> basic understanding of the subject.
>
> TBF Once again you insult the intelligence of your readership.
>
> BB For this reason, you keep coming
> back to the something that you hope would offend me away. You are
> mistaken.
I am not trying top offend you here. The way I try to offend you is
something like this" You brainless scumbag."
There I simply stated the fact.
>
> TBF You really don't understand what's going on here!
Do you?
Tell me?
What is goin on here between you and I is that you didn't like me
telling Hammond he was full of bullshit. From then on you and I have
been engaing in what you think you have the upper hand that is the
vocabulary of vulgarism.
>
> BB Next time you make an attempt to parrot Bahai garbage, know this,
> someone will make an axe of it and will split your head with it. Right
> now you are bleeding.
>
> TBF I don't think so somehow. But, at least, you're starting to show signs
> that your methods don't work. So, is another Banyani coming out to impress
> us? Have you got another Banyani?
Look dumb! I don't think the day will come when I try to impress you.
I made my point about Hammond's rubbish and I had nothing from Hammond
to refute what I said. That is settled and finished. You were not the
one I addressed.
So when you say "I don't think so" I have to remind you that you are
not capable of such function. secondly. I have shown all sighn that my
interests are simply in exposing the huge holes in Bahai bogus
claims.
It is rather funny that a non Bahai should defend Bahais with nothig.
>
> BB I am sure you will come back again to do your job and I am righ there
> to do mine.
>
> TBF Good show! You've left a pile of mouse poop ... be a good chap and clean
> it up on the way out ... and don't forget to close the door after you!
Ra Ra Ra. What else you are capable of?
I must admit you have been the perfect candidate to have become a
Bahai.
bayani....@gmail.com
<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
What did I get for reading your garbage for the past year or so? Are
you capable of producing more than that? I don't think so. That is
called saving my precious time.
bayani....@gmail.com
> On 10 Jul, 12:27, "The Blue Fiddle"
>
> <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9dc67642-89ee-4eb5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > TBF Has it penetrated your morsel of intelligence that we're not interested
> > in what you're saying. You are a pedant and utterly boring at that ... apart
> > from the fact that you try to be a bully and intimidate everybody who does
> > not drop the knee to your self-assumed air of superior knowledge
>
> > BB Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
> > deserved.
>
> > TBF Praise, adulation and the gratitude of the masses!
>
> Oh, cheers Dermod! (or was he talking about you then - I might have
> misunderstood, the way he tortures the language)
>
> This is on the wrong thread now - I started this to take a near-random
> piece of text and show Seon Ferguson what I was talking about when I
> advised him that, if he was *interested* in finding out about the
> history of Baha'u'llah's succession, and the way it was disputed by
> Azali Babis - that he'd have to distinguish between mutually hostile
> sources and make his own mind up about how far to believe such things
> as bayanic.com.
You mean "Bab's succession".
Bayanic.com is from what I know the only place where you find a Bayani
account of what Bahais have been putting out in hundreds of their
publications.
I also have not seen anything that responds to the Bayani version of
the account.
>
> In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
> to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious. From the top to the
end. It is worthless. Majority of the references are Bahai sources.
>
> I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
> Wikipedia -
Agreed!
> my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
> View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
> might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
> has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
> on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
> that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
> contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
> about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
It appears that the Wikipedia system is not capable of securing
Neutral Point of Views.
>
> Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
> better chance of coming out looking good -
I think the opposite. In the end those who can form a larger group
will get to dominate the content.
> hundreds of people want to
> edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
> there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
> well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
> shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
> are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
by Bahais.
>
> The trouble with the Bab, Babi and minority Baha'i denomination pages
> on Wikipedia is that, for the most part they are the preserve of three
> or four heavily biased experts with huge enormorous axes to grind, and
> the articles aren't noteworthy enough to either talented people with
> the motivation to fix them, or experienced admins with the ability to
> referee the conflicts productively.
I have often tried to put a simple change in the Bayani pages to say
that Bayanis prefer to be referred to as Bayani as opposed to Azali
because Subh-i Azal did not establish any religion. The religion that
the Bab (Primal Point) established was not called Babi religion. It
was called according to Him and also Husayn-Ali the religion of Bayan.
I referred to Bayan and even writings of Husayn-Ali where he addresses
those who rejected his claim as "People of Bayan".
This simple remark that reflects the Bayani point of view and is based
on the Bayani and Bahai sources was removed by the Bahai members.
Everytime.
PaulHammond
bayani.belie...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think your messages make less and less sense every day.
In what sense has your burbling away about nonsense that no-one cares
about been helpful to anybody here - least of all Dermod.
You're full of hatred, and incoherent to boot. Maybe you should give
yourself a break from posting until you've got a clear idea of what
you want to say? Maybe wait until you HAVE something to say?
PaulHammond
> On Jul 12, 7:52 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Jul, 12:27, "The Blue Fiddle"
>
> > <grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:9dc67642-89ee-4eb5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > TBF Has it penetrated your morsel of intelligence that we're not interested
> > > in what you're saying. You are a pedant and utterly boring at that ... apart
> > > from the fact that you try to be a bully and intimidate everybody who does
> > > not drop the knee to your self-assumed air of superior knowledge
>
> > > BB Your friend came to your rescue you but he got showered with what he
> > > deserved.
>
> > > TBF Praise, adulation and the gratitude of the masses!
>
> > Oh, cheers Dermod! (or was he talking about you then - I might have
> > misunderstood, the way he tortures the language)
>
> > This is on the wrong thread now - I started this to take a near-random
> > piece of text and show Seon Ferguson what I was talking about when I
> > advised him that, if he was *interested* in finding out about the
> > history of Baha'u'llah's succession, and the way it was disputed by
> > Azali Babis - that he'd have to distinguish between mutually hostile
> > sources and make his own mind up about how far to believe such things
> > as bayanic.com.
>
> You mean "Bab's succession".
No I don't. If I had meant that I would have written that.
Baha'u'llah succeeded to the Bab, and his succession was disputed by
the Azali Babis. If I'd really meant the "Bab's succession" I'd have
written THAT.
Azalis did not dispute the Bab's succession to the power of any Shayki
leaders that I am aware of - such a thought doesn't even make sense.
Perhaps there were some other Shaykhi schools of thought that didn't
like the Bab's appropriation of their teachings, I don't know about
that, but any such opposition to the Bab's succession certainly didn't
come from the followers of Subh-i-Azal.
> Bayanic.com is from what I know the only place where you find a Bayani
> account of what Bahais have been putting out in hundreds of their
> publications.
Since Nima and yourself are largely responsible for the dribble that
makes up that site, why would I find it at all surprising that you'd
recommend it as "unbiased"? You have shown here that you are blind to
your own bias.
>
> > In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
> > to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
>
> This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious.
No it isn't. THere are Bayani authors involved too. I have pointed
out where in the original post on this thread. It's a wikipedia
article that *anyone* can contribute to. My opinion on how
unsatisfactory it is stands - both in the original post on this thread
and in the post you are replying to.
> From the top to the
> end. It is worthless. Majority of the references are Bahai sources.
>
Do you mean "from the top to the end" or "the majority of sources".
Of course, the majority of the editors were displaying Baha'i bias -
but you said "from the top to the end". You have contradicted
yourself now - majority is not 100%, from top to bottom IS 100%.
Choose one.
>
>
> > I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
> > Wikipedia -
>
> Agreed!
>
> > my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
> > View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
> > might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
> > has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
> > on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
> > that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
> > contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
> > about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
>
> It appears that the Wikipedia system is not capable of securing
> Neutral Point of Views.
>
That's a rather sweeping conclusion, and NOT the one I reached in the
next paragraph - these widely controversial topics in which LOTS of
people are interested have a better chance of becoming good articles.
Your conclusion is far too pessimistic!
>
> > Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
> > better chance of coming out looking good -
>
> I think the opposite. In the end those who can form a larger group
> will get to dominate the content.
>
THere are larger groups on both sides, and more interest in the
article. Hundreds of fundie Christians, for example, want to write
into the gay articles that homosexuals will burn in hell if they don't
cure themselves. However, hundreds of gay people will not let them
get away with pushing that prejudice, having a healthy culture of
their own. Also, there are enough non-gay sympathisers to resist the
fundies, and enough wikipedia admins to see that factions of
Christians can't turn articles on gay culture into their own hateful
propaganda (so much so that those who want to say such things formed
their own, deliberatedly bias version - Conservapedia - to push their
own views)
> > hundreds of people want to
> > edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
> > there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
> > well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
> > shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
> > are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
>
> That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> by Bahais.
>
I believe I said that. Only two or three people are interested in
such subjects as Bayanis - which is a minority interest view within a
minority interest area. Only a small number of people are interested
in the Baha'i articles. Most people don't care about the Baha'is.
Even fewer people care about the Bayanis, who were mostly forgotten
once the majority of the Babis became Baha'is two centuries ago.
Oh look - yes, I DID say that:
>
> > The trouble with the Bab, Babi and minority Baha'i denomination pages
> > on Wikipedia is that, for the most part they are the preserve of three
> > or four heavily biased experts with huge enormorous axes to grind, and
> > the articles aren't noteworthy enough to either talented people with
> > the motivation to fix them, or experienced admins with the ability to
> > referee the conflicts productively.
>
> I have often tried to put a simple change in the Bayani pages to say
> that Bayanis prefer to be referred to as Bayani as opposed to Azali
> because Subh-i Azal did not establish any religion. The religion that
> the Bab (Primal Point) established was not called Babi religion. It
> was called according to Him and also Husayn-Ali the religion of Bayan.
> I referred to Bayan and even writings of Husayn-Ali where he addresses
> those who rejected his claim as "People of Bayan".
>
> This simple remark that reflects the Bayani point of view and is based
> on the Bayani and Bahai sources was removed by the Bahai members.
> Everytime
You probably don't have the arguing skills to put your point of view
across coherently. I certainly find it increasingly difficult to
understand the points you're trying to make here, when you suggest,
elsewhere in this thread, for example, that you have ever tried to be
"helpful" to Dermod - who you've been calling "Dead Weed" for upwards
of 18 months.
PaulHammond
> On Jul 10, 9:27 pm, "The Blue Fiddle"<grim_NOSPAMreaper_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > TBF I don't think so somehow. But, at least, you're starting to show signs
> > that your methods don't work. So, is another Banyani coming out to impress
> > us? Have you got another Banyani?
>
> Look dumb!
Indeed, you do.
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me sum up what you said here: NOTHING.
bayani....@gmail.com
Bayanis could care less about the succession of Husayn Ali other than
making the point that his son did to his step brothers what Husayn-Ali
did to Subh-i Azal.
>
> Azalis did not dispute the Bab's succession to the power of any Shayki
> leaders that I am aware of -
Bayanis have never said The Point was a successor to Seyyid Kazim of
Rasht the last Sheikhi leader. They believe Islamic cycle ended with
Seyyid Kzim.
> such a thought doesn't even make sense.
> Perhaps there were some other Shaykhi schools of thought that didn't
> like the Bab's appropriation of their teachings, I don't know about
> that, but any such opposition to the Bab's succession certainly didn't
> come from the followers of Subh-i-Azal.
You are not making sense!
>
> > Bayanic.com is from what I know the only place where you find a Bayani
> > account of what Bahais have been putting out in hundreds of their
> > publications.
>
> Since Nima and yourself are largely responsible for the dribble that
> makes up that site, why would I find it at all surprising that you'd
> recommend it as "unbiased"? You have shown here that you are blind to
> your own bias.
Ra Ra Ra.
Bayanic.com is a collection of works by primary figures and accounts
by past Bayanis. There is not a single account in there that comes
from me or or Nima unless it says so.
Try again.
>
>
>
> > > In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
> > > to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
>
> > This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious.
>
> No it isn't. THere are Bayani authors involved too. I have pointed
> out where in the original post on this thread. It's a wikipedia
> article that *anyone* can contribute to. My opinion on how
> unsatisfactory it is stands - both in the original post on this thread
> and in the post you are replying to.
Of course there are. Their contributions are being contanty undone by
Bahais.
>
> > From the top to the
> > end. It is worthless. Majority of the references are Bahai sources.
>
> Do you mean "from the top to the end" or "the majority of sources".
>
> Of course, the majority of the editors were displaying Baha'i bias -
> but you said "from the top to the end". You have contradicted
> yourself now - majority is not 100%, from top to bottom IS 100%.
> Choose one.
I mean from the top to the end and majority of the sources are Bahai
sources.>
>
> > > I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
> > > Wikipedia -
>
> > Agreed!
>
> > > my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
> > > View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
> > > might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
> > > has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
> > > on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
> > > that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
> > > contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
> > > about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
>
> > It appears that the Wikipedia system is not capable of securing
> > Neutral Point of Views.
>
> That's a rather sweeping conclusion, and NOT the one I reached in the
> next paragraph - these widely controversial topics in which LOTS of
> people are interested have a better chance of becoming good articles.
> Your conclusion is far too pessimistic!
I have seen that in practice.
> > > Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
> > > better chance of coming out looking good -
>
> > I think the opposite. In the end those who can form a larger group
> > will get to dominate the content.
>
> THere are larger groups on both sides, and more interest in the
> article. Hundreds of fundie Christians, for example, want to write
> into the gay articles that homosexuals will burn in hell if they don't
> cure themselves. However, hundreds of gay people will not let them
> get away with pushing that prejudice, having a healthy culture of
> their own. Also, there are enough non-gay sympathisers to resist the
> fundies, and enough wikipedia admins to see that factions of
> Christians can't turn articles on gay culture into their own hateful
> propaganda (so much so that those who want to say such things formed
> their own, deliberatedly bias version - Conservapedia - to push their
> own views)
WP appears to be a democratic system. The more people support a
particular point of view thebetter chance of the material going their
way.
And that is what is happening as far as Bahai and Bayani point of
views are concerned. I put in a note that is supported by the primary
Bahai sources but it was undone with 'uncited'! Now, how do I get to
make this point when Bahais keep undoing it for their own interest?
>
> > > hundreds of people want to
> > > edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
> > > there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
> > > well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
> > > shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
> > > are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
>
> > That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> > by Bahais.
>
> I believe I said that. Only two or three people are interested in
> such subjects as Bayanis - which is a minority interest view within a
> minority interest area.
I don't agree with that. The interest is there. The information has
not been distributed widely enough at all.
> Only a small number of people are interested
> in the Baha'i articles. Most people don't care about the Baha'is.
> Even fewer people care about the Bayanis, who were mostly forgotten
> once the majority of the Babis became Baha'is two centuries ago.
How can those people be interested when the do not know about Bayanis
and what they have to say?
Majority of Bahais do not know about Bayan and Bayanis let alone non
Bahais.
>
> Oh look - yes, I DID say that:
What?
> > > The trouble with the Bab, Babi and minority Baha'i denomination pages
> > > on Wikipedia is that, for the most part they are the preserve of three
> > > or four heavily biased experts with huge enormorous axes to grind, and
> > > the articles aren't noteworthy enough to either talented people with
> > > the motivation to fix them, or experienced admins with the ability to
> > > referee the conflicts productively.
>
> > I have often tried to put a simple change in the Bayani pages to say
> > that Bayanis prefer to be referred to as Bayani as opposed to Azali
> > because Subh-i Azal did not establish any religion. The religion that
> > the Bab (Primal Point) established was not called Babi religion. It
> > was called according to Him and also Husayn-Ali the religion of Bayan.
> > I referred to Bayan and even writings of Husayn-Ali where he addresses
> > those who rejected his claim as "People of Bayan".
>
> > This simple remark that reflects the Bayani point of view and is based
> > on the Bayani and Bahai sources was removed by the Bahai members.
> > Everytime
>
> You probably don't have the arguing skills to put your point of view
> across coherently. I certainly find it increasingly difficult to
> understand the points you're trying to make here, when you suggest,
> elsewhere in this thread, for example, that you have ever tried to be
> "helpful" to Dermod - who you've been calling "Dead Weed" for upwards
May be you should to look at my contribution to the "Bab's
succession".
I did't argue with anyone. I pointed out the Bayani point of view. I
would be interested to know if there was one single Bayani
contribution recorded in the article. Worse than that the"Bahaullah"
article might as well have been written by Shoghi Effendi.
As far as Dead Weed is concerned, I don't think we got anywhere close
to talk about anything other than abusing one another in the past year
or so.
He always said he was not interested and was always keen to make smart
ass comments. So, I believe "being helpful to .." is just out of place.
bayani....@gmail.com
The only sign you should have seen from me is this "No Bullshit".
I don't expect at all that you or Dead Weed agree with me.
Your ego is much stronger to allow that to happen.
As for Dead Weed I like to do without him.
PaulHammond
bayani.belie...@gmail.com wrote:
Go back and read it again then!
Like I say, I meant, and mean "Baha'u'llah's succession to the Bab".
As you say, Bayanis don't see the Bab as a "successor" to anybody - so
describing the idea of Baha'u'llah taking over from the Bab as "Bab's
Succession", which is what you seem to want me to do is what actually
makes no sense.
Stop trying to make incorrect and pedantic corrections to my posts,
and then adding confusion when I try to explain why I mean what I say!
> >
> > > Bayanic.com is from what I know the only place where you find a Bayani
> > > account of what Bahais have been putting out in hundreds of their
> > > publications.
> >
> > Since Nima and yourself are largely responsible for the dribble that
> > makes up that site, why would I find it at all surprising that you'd
> > recommend it as "unbiased"? You have shown here that you are blind to
> > your own bias.
> Ra Ra Ra.
>
> Bayanic.com is a collection of works by primary figures and accounts
> by past Bayanis. There is not a single account in there that comes
> from me or or Nima unless it says so.
> Try again.
>
I've read some of the Essays from that site that Nima has posted to
this forum. His hands are all over it.
It doesn't just collect sources, it tries to distort them to portray
the history you want in the way that you want to portray it - in
PRECISELY the way which Vance Salisbury criticises the Baha'is for
doing in an essay with Nima has also posted to this forum.
Anyway - the point that I would advise Seon, or other newbies coming
at this material for the first time is that the history exists only in
mutually hostile sources that accuse each other of all kinds of
wrongdoing.
Bayanic.com is a biased site, in exactly the same way that bahai.org
is - reader beware!
> >
> >
> > > > In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
> > > > to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
> >
> > > This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious.
> >
> > No it isn't. THere are Bayani authors involved too. I have pointed
> > out where in the original post on this thread. It's a wikipedia
> > article that *anyone* can contribute to. My opinion on how
> > unsatisfactory it is stands - both in the original post on this thread
> > and in the post you are replying to.
>
> Of course there are. Their contributions are being contanty undone by
> Bahais.
>
In what sense, then is
"This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious."
the whole truth?
> >
> > > From the top to the
> > > end. It is worthless. Majority of the references are Bahai sources.
> >
> > Do you mean "from the top to the end" or "the majority of sources".
> >
> > Of course, the majority of the editors were displaying Baha'i bias -
> > but you said "from the top to the end". You have contradicted
> > yourself now - majority is not 100%, from top to bottom IS 100%.
> > Choose one.
>
> I mean from the top to the end and majority of the sources are Bahai
> sources.>
>
You can't mean both. Written from top to bottom by Baha'is means 100%
Baha'i.
Majority means more then 50% but not as much as 100% Baha'i.
I'm glad we've corrected your innaccurate original statement.
> >
> > > > I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
> > > > Wikipedia -
> >
> > > Agreed!
> >
> > > > my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
> > > > View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
> > > > might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
> > > > has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
> > > > on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
> > > > that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
> > > > contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
> > > > about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
> >
> > > It appears that the Wikipedia system is not capable of securing
> > > Neutral Point of Views.
> >
> > That's a rather sweeping conclusion, and NOT the one I reached in the
> > next paragraph - these widely controversial topics in which LOTS of
> > people are interested have a better chance of becoming good articles.
> > Your conclusion is far too pessimistic!
>
> I have seen that in practice.
>
You have only seen in practice the minority interest articles that you
have edited - the ones on Bayani issues.
I am talking about issues which are controversial, but of interest to
LARGE NUMBERS of people. These are my examples - articles on Charles
Darwin, articles on Homosexuality, articles on Judaism, articles on
Israel.
When there is lots of interest in an article, the Wikipedia theory of
self-correction works to an extent, because of the involvement of
talented people and experienced editors.
The process breaks down in minority-interest articles because there
are no talented contributors, and whichever admin types do become
interested cannot referree the fights in order to benefit the articles
with constructive outcomes.
>
> > > > Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
> > > > better chance of coming out looking good -
> >
> > > I think the opposite. In the end those who can form a larger group
> > > will get to dominate the content.
> >
> > THere are larger groups on both sides, and more interest in the
> > article. Hundreds of fundie Christians, for example, want to write
> > into the gay articles that homosexuals will burn in hell if they don't
> > cure themselves. However, hundreds of gay people will not let them
> > get away with pushing that prejudice, having a healthy culture of
> > their own. Also, there are enough non-gay sympathisers to resist the
> > fundies, and enough wikipedia admins to see that factions of
> > Christians can't turn articles on gay culture into their own hateful
> > propaganda (so much so that those who want to say such things formed
> > their own, deliberatedly bias version - Conservapedia - to push their
> > own views)
>
> WP appears to be a democratic system. The more people support a
> particular point of view thebetter chance of the material going their
> way.
That's true to an extent, but I think having more talented, better
informed writers coming to those articles, and more experieced admins
mediating the arguments tends towards Wikipedia achieving its stated
aims.
> And that is what is happening as far as Bahai and Bayani point of
> views are concerned.
Any argument about having large numbers of people interested in an
article tend to make it better certainly don't apply to the Baha'i and
Babi articles.
There's only about 5 or 6 people interested in editing articles about
Subh-i-Azal, Charles Mason Remey, Soghomanian and Joel Marangella.
There are only about 15 people interested in the Baha'i articles.
> >
> > > > hundreds of people want to
> > > > edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
> > > > there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
> > > > well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
> > > > shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
> > > > are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
> >
> > > That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> > > by Bahais.
> >
> > I believe I said that. Only two or three people are interested in
> > such subjects as Bayanis - which is a minority interest view within a
> > minority interest area.
>
> I don't agree with that. The interest is there. The information has
> not been distributed widely enough at all.
>
There aren't hundreds of people interested in editing the Baha'i
articles. That's a fact.
> > Only a small number of people are interested
> > in the Baha'i articles. Most people don't care about the Baha'is.
> > Even fewer people care about the Bayanis, who were mostly forgotten
> > once the majority of the Babis became Baha'is two centuries ago.
>
> How can those people be interested when the do not know about Bayanis
> and what they have to say?
> Majority of Bahais do not know about Bayan and Bayanis let alone non
> Bahais.
>
> >
> > Oh look - yes, I DID say that:
> What?
>
This applies/refers back to the following:
> > > That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> > > by Bahais.
> >
> > I believe I said that.
I mean, that if you had read on, you would have found that I was
making the point that the good things that I think happen when there
is a large interest in an article do not apply to Baha'i and Bayani
pages.
I mean that when you said "that's not how it works with the Bayani
pages", that this is precisely what I was saying - that the good
things that happen when lots of people find an article controversial
and want it to say what they believe do not apply to the Baha'i and
Bayani pages, where only 4 or 5 people of opposing viewpoints,
probably none of them talented enough to write a fair, readable NPOV
article, are using Wikipedia as a forum for their personal axe-
grinding rather than attempting to write a good article.
Indeed - because, of course, Shoghi Effendi was well known for
publishing photographs of Baha'u'llah in all his books on the Baha'i
Faith!
You've mentioned a particular example - of someone asking you to cite
some information behind a change you made. Thing is, if one set of
sources always refers to people of your point of view as "Bayani" and
another set of sources always refers to them as "Azali", it's not
enough to simply point to the sources you want to emphasise and expect
neutral admins to ignore the fact that other sources exist. You have
to be able to make your case coherently, and according to how
Wikipedia is meant to work.
> As far as Dead Weed is concerned, I don't think we got anywhere close
> to talk about anything other than abusing one another in the past year
> or so.
> He always said he was not interested and was always keen to make smart
> ass comments. So, I believe "being helpful to .." is just out of place.
WHy did you suggest in another post, then, that you were trying to be
helpful to him?
Paul
bayani....@gmail.com
I don't need to.
>
> Like I say, I meant, and mean "Baha'u'llah's succession to the Bab".
>
> As you say, Bayanis don't see the Bab as a "successor" to anybody - so
> describing the idea of Baha'u'llah taking over from the Bab as "Bab's
> Succession", which is what you seem to want me to do is what actually
> makes no sense.
>
> Stop trying to make incorrect and pedantic corrections to my posts,
> and then adding confusion when I try to explain why I mean what I say!
You call it what you want. No confusion! I express my views where I
deem appropriate.
>
> > > > Bayanic.com is from what I know the only place where you find a Bayani
> > > > account of what Bahais have been putting out in hundreds of their
> > > > publications.
>
> > > Since Nima and yourself are largely responsible for the dribble that
> > > makes up that site, why would I find it at all surprising that you'd
> > > recommend it as "unbiased"? You have shown here that you are blind to
> > > your own bias.
> > Ra Ra Ra.
>
> > Bayanic.com is a collection of works by primary figures and accounts
> > by past Bayanis. There is not a single account in there that comes
> > from me or or Nima unless it says so.
> > Try again.
>
> I've read some of the Essays from that site that Nima has posted to
> this forum. His hands are all over it.
>
> It doesn't just collect sources, it tries to distort them to portray
> the history you want in the way that you want to portray it - in
> PRECISELY the way which Vance Salisbury criticises the Baha'is for
> doing in an essay with Nima has also posted to this forum.
That is a big accusation with no evidence. Cite to me where you think
"tries to distort".
In fact it exposes Bahai distortions which is what you failed to see.
>
> Anyway - the point that I would advise Seon, or other newbies coming
> at this material for the first time is that the history exists only in
> mutually hostile sources that accuse each other of all kinds of
> wrongdoing.
>
> Bayanic.com is a biased site, in exactly the same way that bahai.org
> is - reader beware!
I would be surprised if Seon or others were not be mindful of what
these would be representing.
> > > > > In that extract from the article on the Bab, it was particularly easy
> > > > > to see the bias of the various writers of each paragraph.
>
> > > > This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious.
>
> > > No it isn't. THere are Bayani authors involved too. I have pointed
> > > out where in the original post on this thread. It's a wikipedia
> > > article that *anyone* can contribute to. My opinion on how
> > > unsatisfactory it is stands - both in the original post on this thread
> > > and in the post you are replying to.
>
> > Of course there are. Their contributions are being contanty undone by
> > Bahais.
>
> In what sense, then is
>
> "This article is written by Bahais. It is obvious."
>
> the whole truth?
In the sense that all accounts are Bahai accounts. There is not much
Bayani point of views in there.
Citations are third level accounts. For example quoting Juan Cole for
a historical account whre Cole himself quotes a Bahai source. Majority
of the citations are also Bahai.
> > > > From the top to the
> > > > end. It is worthless. Majority of the references are Bahai sources.
>
> > > Do you mean "from the top to the end" or "the majority of sources".
>
> > > Of course, the majority of the editors were displaying Baha'i bias -
> > > but you said "from the top to the end". You have contradicted
> > > yourself now - majority is not 100%, from top to bottom IS 100%.
> > > Choose one.
>
> > I mean from the top to the end and majority of the sources are Bahai
> > sources.>
>
> You can't mean both. Written from top to bottom by Baha'is means 100%
> Baha'i.
> Majority means more then 50% but not as much as 100% Baha'i.
>
> I'm glad we've corrected your innaccurate original statement.
Don't get too excited. You knew what I said exactly right from the
beginning. Now, who is pedantic!
> > > > > I also offered my opinion that this isn't what's meant to happen on
> > > > > Wikipedia -
>
> > > > Agreed!
>
> > > > > my interpretation of their NPOV policy (Neutral Point of
> > > > > View) is that the final form of an article should tend towards what
> > > > > might be written by a *single* interested and well-informed author who
> > > > > has done his level best to be fair to all sides of differing opinion
> > > > > on that subject. Obviously difficult to do, especially on articles
> > > > > that are widely controversial (American political ones, since most
> > > > > contributers live in the states and have axes to grind - articles
> > > > > about Darwin, Homosexuals, history of Isreal etc. etc.)
>
> > > > It appears that the Wikipedia system is not capable of securing
> > > > Neutral Point of Views.
>
> > > That's a rather sweeping conclusion, and NOT the one I reached in the
> > > next paragraph - these widely controversial topics in which LOTS of
> > > people are interested have a better chance of becoming good articles.
> > > Your conclusion is far too pessimistic!
>
> > I have seen that in practice.
>
> You have only seen in practice the minority interest articles that you
> have edited - the ones on Bayani issues.
I have seen most Bahai articles. That is my personal experience.
>
> I am talking about issues which are controversial, but of interest to
> LARGE NUMBERS of people. These are my examples - articles on Charles
> Darwin, articles on Homosexuality, articles on Judaism, articles on
> Israel.
>
> When there is lots of interest in an article, the Wikipedia theory of
> self-correction works to an extent, because of the involvement of
> talented people and experienced editors.
>
> The process breaks down in minority-interest articles because there
> are no talented contributors, and whichever admin types do become
> interested cannot referree the fights in order to benefit the articles
> with constructive outcomes.
None of what you said here makes me think that I can trust WP anything
more than I did before.
> > > > > Actually, I think those *widely* controversial topics probably have a
> > > > > better chance of coming out looking good -
>
> > > > I think the opposite. In the end those who can form a larger group
> > > > will get to dominate the content.
>
> > > THere are larger groups on both sides, and more interest in the
> > > article. Hundreds of fundie Christians, for example, want to write
> > > into the gay articles that homosexuals will burn in hell if they don't
> > > cure themselves. However, hundreds of gay people will not let them
> > > get away with pushing that prejudice, having a healthy culture of
> > > their own. Also, there are enough non-gay sympathisers to resist the
> > > fundies, and enough wikipedia admins to see that factions of
> > > Christians can't turn articles on gay culture into their own hateful
> > > propaganda (so much so that those who want to say such things formed
> > > their own, deliberatedly bias version - Conservapedia - to push their
> > > own views)
>
> > WP appears to be a democratic system. The more people support a
> > particular point of view thebetter chance of the material going their
> > way.
>
> That's true to an extent, but I think having more talented, better
> informed writers coming to those articles, and more experieced admins
> mediating the arguments tends towards Wikipedia achieving its stated
> aims.
That is a big if. When the subject is as hot as religious issues then
the religious feelings take over the "talents".
>
> > And that is what is happening as far as Bahai and Bayani point of
> > views are concerned.
>
> Any argument about having large numbers of people interested in an
> article tend to make it better certainly don't apply to the Baha'i and
> Babi articles.
>
> There's only about 5 or 6 people interested in editing articles about
> Subh-i-Azal, Charles Mason Remey, Soghomanian and Joel Marangella.
You should then take a look at the contributor list in those pages.
>
> There are only about 15 people interested in the Baha'i articles.
I think you are wrong.
> > > > > hundreds of people want to
> > > > > edit them, the whole machinery of Wikipedia comes into play, and
> > > > > there's a better chance that one or two editors who actually *are*
> > > > > well-informed neutrals with the writing ability to do justice to many
> > > > > shades of opinion (or at least, have the ability to write as if they
> > > > > are neutral) will turn up and work on it.
>
> > > > That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> > > > by Bahais.
>
> > > I believe I said that. Only two or three people are interested in
> > > such subjects as Bayanis - which is a minority interest view within a
> > > minority interest area.
>
> > I don't agree with that. The interest is there. The information has
> > not been distributed widely enough at all.
>
> There aren't hundreds of people interested in editing the Baha'i
> articles. That's a fact.
Compared to a subject on say George Bush, may be. My problem is what I
said before. One Bayani like me will not be able to include the Bayani
point of view in a page that is very much related to Bayanis just
because of the presence of the Bahais in there. I am sure WP works
very well in science related matters. In fact I look up WP for many of
my scientific problems.
>
> > > Only a small number of people are interested
> > > in the Baha'i articles. Most people don't care about the Baha'is.
> > > Even fewer people care about the Bayanis, who were mostly forgotten
> > > once the majority of the Babis became Baha'is two centuries ago.
>
> > How can those people be interested when the do not know about Bayanis
> > and what they have to say?
> > Majority of Bahais do not know about Bayan and Bayanis let alone non
> > Bahais.
>
> > > Oh look - yes, I DID say that:
> > What?
>
> This applies/refers back to the following:
>
> > > > That is not how it works ate least on the Bayani related pages written
> > > > by Bahais.
>
> > > I believe I said that.
>
> I mean, that if you had read on, you would have found that I was
> making the point that the good things that I think happen when there
> is a large interest in an article do not apply to Baha'i and Bayani
> pages.
Yep. That is what I said too.
Look! I said even Husayn-Ali in his own books such as Aqdas and Kitab-
Badi refers to Bayanis as People of Bayan.
Should I have include a link to those?
I said Subh-i Azal did not claim to establish a new faith. Did I need
to cite that.
I said the Persian Bayan never refers to the faith it founded as the
Babi religion. Should I have included a citation for that?
Those people who keep saying Babi should have included a citation to
prove that the "Bab" established Babi religion!
I said the title "Bab" was for the first four years only and I cited
his Book of 5 Modes.
If I can't get them to include these, then there is no hope. Those
people who keep undoing them are Babais donating 9 pointed Stars to
one another! They are no neutral editor.
>
> > As far as Dead Weed is concerned, I don't think we got anywhere close
> > to talk about anything other than abusing one another in the past year
> > or so.
> > He always said he was not interested and was always keen to make smart
> > ass comments. So, I believe "being helpful to .." is just out of place.
>
> WHy did you suggest in another post, then, that you were trying to be
> helpful to him?
mmm!
I might have wanted to help hi mental health in a sarcastic way, but
as I said, I never had any meaningful discussion with him. It just
never came up! He was not interested. He is just interested in you
know what!
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bbab138-59e7-4230...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>(snip)
>>
>> You've mentioned a particular example - of someone asking you to cite
>> some information behind a change you made. Thing is, if one set of
>> sources always refers to people of your point of view as "Bayani" and
>> another set of sources always refers to them as "Azali", it's not
>> enough to simply point to the sources you want to emphasise and expect
>> neutral admins to ignore the fact that other sources exist. You have
>> to be able to make your case coherently, and according to how
>> Wikipedia is meant to work.
>
> Look! I said even Husayn-Ali in his own books such as Aqdas and Kitab-
> Badi refers to Bayanis as People of Bayan.
> Should I have include a link to those?
> I said Subh-i Azal did not claim to establish a new faith. Did I need
> to cite that.
> I said the Persian Bayan never refers to the faith it founded as the
> Babi religion. Should I have included a citation for that?
> Those people who keep saying Babi should have included a citation to
> prove that the "Bab" established Babi religion!
> I said the title "Bab" was for the first four years only and I cited
> his Book of 5 Modes.
> If I can't get them to include these, then there is no hope. Those
> people who keep undoing them are Babais donating 9 pointed Stars to
> one another! They are no neutral editor.
>
Talk to Wahid Azal. He runs around the internet claiming that you are
Babis. Even though I think he is wrong, it does cause confusion. Please
advise when you've gotten him around to seeing your side of this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AB> What happened to the Bayanis???!!!?!?!?! The term "Babis" is
pejorative.
Death2: What do you mean what? No, the term "azali" is pejorative. Not Babi.
Death2: We used it all over bayanic.com, so take your skewed-eye bahaim head
Death2: out of your lying bahaim asshole.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/8005e3aa9ad0ca34
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- All Bad
PaulHammond
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> - All Bad
>
>
Interesting post, this one Pat.
It seems to confirm something that I thought was true, but which Steve
denied, when I said that I thought Nima and Steve were responsible for
most of the original material on the bayanic.com site.
This *does* look to me like Nima claims some ownership and
responsibility for what is written on that site:
"We used it all over bayanic.com"
Paul
All Bad
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:b7d4eda5-aad1-49e4...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Still, it remains hard to say for sure if Steve is one of Wahid's "we" or
the "we" is just the 78 wee white mice and Wahid.
- All Bad
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Heeeey! Hold your donkeys!
You are the confused one.
The important thing is to acknowledge what is right and what is wrong.
I am not responsible for Nima.
Prior to the year 1850 there was no Bayan and as per the Book of 5
Modes, the firs 4 years were the period in which the Point held teh
station of Bab-hood.
Then for two years were the station of Qaiem-hood and after hat the
Point-hood or the station of divinity.
>
> Death2: What do you mean what? No, the term "azali" is pejorative. Not Babi.
My point is that the use of the term Azali torefer to Bayanis is
ambiguous and
misleading. Itcratesthe impression that SUbh-i Azal claimed a new
manifestation which is false.
> Death2: We used it all over bayanic.com, so take your skewed-eye bahaim head
That would depend on the context and the author. It may well be
quoting someone who goes by the crowd.
The imortant thing is the acknowledgment that those who believe in the
Primal Point and have rejected Husayn-Ali were Bayani and are Bayani
today.
Now, you can go around trying to find dirt but that will not get you
anywhere.
> Death2: out of your lying bahaim
Since you are notmaking sense to me I will not b able o help you here.
asshole.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/
8005e3aa9ad0ca34
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> - All Bad
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > As far as Dead Weed is concerned, I don't think we got anywhere close
> >> > to talk about anything other than abusing one another in the past year
> >> > or so.
> >> > He always said he was not interested and was always keen to make smart
> >> > ass comments. So, I believe "being helpful to .." is just out of place.
>
> >> WHy did you suggest in another post, then, that you were trying to be
> >> helpful to him?
> > mmm!
> > I might have wanted to help hi mental health in a sarcastic way, but
> > as I said, I never had any meaningful discussion with him. It just
> > never came up! He was not interested. He is just interested in you
> > know what!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> It seems to confirm something that I thought was true, but which Steve
> denied, when I said that I thought Nima and Steve were responsible for
> most of the original material on the bayanic.com site.
You are wrong!
It seems you use too much "it seems" without knowing much.
I have noting to do with the contents of Bayanic.com.
If you looked more carefully. All resources there are from Baynic
primary sources, and that accounts for 90% of the contents
The Bahai section of the site comes from the past Bayani scholars and
Jalal Azal as per the introduction on that site.
I believe Nima has the following contributions there:
The translation of the Tablet of succession
The translation of the poems by Tahira
A commentary on Husayn-Ali's swam song on Ghiyath and Mustaghath
Nima can confirm if there are any more. The site is clear on citing
the source.
>
> This *does* look to me like Nima claims some ownership and
> responsibility for what is written on that site:
Nima has never claimed responsibility for that site. As far as I know.
>
> "We used it all over bayanic.com"
Surely he must mean the site represents his though.
Try again.
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "PaulHammond" <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
With your hard core concluions drawn from"it seems", I a sure you can
imagine the rest of it too. Try to comprehnd whoteve is based on what
h says not yourimagination.
This is my "it seems":
It seems even one Bayani is proving to be too much for the 6 Million
Husayn-Alists.
303
303
What the hack KKKholi is sleight of handing is deliberately confusing
two different issues and trying to make it seem that the one which is
a slur applies to the other then re-applying the other unto us. It is
the shuffle game of bahaim dishonesty and sleaze which these people
have taken to an art form. This is the typical two-faced tactics of
this mob of demons, and an example in the manner in which these demons
have functioned since 1867. The argument is that the label "AZALI" as
an epithet of the People of the Bayan is a slur. Knowing this, KKKholi
is deceptively suggesting we have previously suggested that the term
BABI is a slur, when we have done no such thing nor suggested it
either here or on Bayanic.com. We have argued that the label "Bab"
qua precursor to Husayn Ali Nari in the manner these cultists have
used it is a slur on the Primal Point - which Browne himself has
pointed out as well. KKKholi is deliberately obfuscating the matter,
selectively taking the words and issues out of context (as these
demons always will), and then trying to apply it to us. "It seems"
KKKholi is full of it as usual.
W
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
303
All Bad
"303" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e10638a3-1559-45fc...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Apparently the Bayanis (that is, you and Steve) do not use the term Babis to
describe yourselves, while you and the white mice do.
I'd draw a picture, but this is usenet and I can only post text.
- All Bad
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45f31928-97e5-4e50...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 1:42 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Jul, 15:27, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Talk to Wahid Azal. He runs around the internet claiming that you are
> > Babis. Even though I think he is wrong, it does cause confusion. Please
> > advise when you've gotten him around to seeing your side of this.
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > AB> What happened to the Bayanis???!!!?!?!?! The term "Babis" is
> > pejorative.
>
> > Death2: What do you mean what? No, the term "azali" is pejorative. Not
> > Babi.
> > Death2: We used it all over bayanic.com, so take your skewed-eye bahaim
> > head
> > Death2: out of your lying bahaim
> > asshole.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/8005e3aa9ad0ca34
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > - All Bad
>
> Interesting post, this one Pat.
Not so fast edy!
>
> It seems to confirm something that I thought was true, but which Steve
> denied, when I said that I thought Nima and Steve were responsible for
> most of the original material on the bayanic.com site.
BB: You are wrong!
BB: It seems you use too much "it seems" without knowing much.
BB: I have noting to do with the contents of Bayanic.com.
BB: If you looked more carefully. All resources there are from Baynic
BB: primary sources, and that accounts for 90% of the contents
BB: The Bahai section of the site comes from the past Bayani scholars and
BB: Jalal Azal as per the introduction on that site.
You do _seem_ to know a bit more about its origins than the passing
pedestrian might know of.
BB: I believe Nima has the following contributions there:
When you say "Nima" are you referring to QWahid Azal, formerly known as
Abraxas, whose Baha'i slave name was "Nima Hazini"? Didn't you get the
email that "Nima" is not his name-oh anymore?
BB: The translation of the Tablet of succession
BB: The translation of the poems by Tahira
BB: A commentary on Husayn-Ali's swam song on Ghiyath and Mustaghath
BB: Nima can confirm if there are any more. The site is clear on citing
the source.
There you go again. It's because he wrote "Babi" once too often, isn't it?
>
> This *does* look to me like Nima claims some ownership and
> responsibility for what is written on that site:
BB: Nima has never claimed responsibility for that site. As far as I know.
Keep reading.
>
> "We used it all over bayanic.com"
BB: Surely he must mean the site represents his though.
BB: Try again.
Yes, do try again.
- All Bad
All Bad
> Dear Steve,
>
> What the hack KKKholi is sleight of handing is deliberately confusing
> two different issues and trying to make it seem that the one which is
> a slur applies to the other then re-applying the other unto us. It is
> the shuffle game of bahaim dishonesty and sleaze which these people
> have taken to an art form. This is the typical two-faced tactics of
> this mob of demons, and an example in the manner in which these demons
> have functioned since 1867. The argument is that the label "AZALI" as
You lie. Steve repeatedly was saying that "Babi" was a slur. In fact, I
told you that last month and you said I was wrong.
"I said the Persian Bayan never refers to the faith it founded as the
Babi religion. Should I have included a citation for that?
Those people who keep saying Babi should have included a citation to
prove that the "Bab" established Babi religion!
I said the title "Bab" was for the first four years only and I cited
his Book of 5 Modes."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/a053fbf1e7968910
> an epithet of the People of the Bayan is a slur. Knowing this, KKKholi
> is deceptively suggesting we have previously suggested that the term
Be clear as to whom you refer to by "we". Steve has repeatedly and clearly
said that the Primal Point did not find the Babi Faith, and that even
Baha'u'llah referred to the Bayanis as "People of the Bayan"
> BABI is a slur, when we have done no such thing nor suggested it
You lie. Your white mice are not the rodents of the Bayan.
> either here or on Bayanic.com. We have argued that the label "Bab"
> qua precursor to Husayn Ali Nari in the manner these cultists have
> used it is a slur on the Primal Point - which Browne himself has
> pointed out as well. KKKholi is deliberately obfuscating the matter,
Now you are weaseling away to cover the facts, too. Thanks for the honest
confession.
> selectively taking the words and issues out of context (as these
> demons always will), and then trying to apply it to us. "It seems"
> KKKholi is full of it as usual.
>
>
- All Bad
PaulHammond
>
Things that Nima has written, and I have quoted do not only exist in
my imagination.
I may have "imagined" that Nima wrote articles on the bayanic.com site
because I've seen Nima claiming that he has (as well as the fact that
he's posted some of these articles here before).
I've already expressed my views elsewhere on this thread (when I was
addressing Seon, a possibly interested outsider) as to exactly which
parts of bayanic.com I'd regard as worth looking at. Maybe you can
find those statements of mine before "imagining" what you think I'm
saying.
Paul
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "303" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Do you acknowledge that given what is in Bayan and even by what is in
your Aqdas, the term Bayani better describes those who believe in teh
Point and have not changed their allegiance since then despite Husayn-
Ali's claim?
bayani....@gmail.com
> BB: You are wrong!
> BB: It seems you use too much "it seems" without knowing much.
> BB: I have noting to do with the contents of Bayanic.com.
> BB: If you looked more carefully. All resources there are from Baynic
> BB: primary sources, and that accounts for 90% of the contents
> BB: The Bahai section of the site comes from the past Bayani scholars and
> BB: Jalal Azal as per the introduction on that site.
>
> You do _seem_ to know a bit more about its origins than the passing
> pedestrian might know of.
I just cited from there. Look for yourself. Take a look at the Library
section and the Bahai section.
You will know in 2 seconds.
>
> BB: I believe Nima has the following contributions there:
>
> When you say "Nima" are you referring to QWahid Azal, formerly known as
> Abraxas, whose Baha'i slave name was "Nima Hazini"? Didn't you get the
> email that "Nima" is not his name-oh anymore?
>
> BB: The translation of the Tablet of succession
> BB: The translation of the poems by Tahira
> BB: A commentary on Husayn-Ali's swam song on Ghiyath and Mustaghath
>
> BB: Nima can confirm if there are any more. The site is clear on citing
> the source.
>
> There you go again. It's because he wrote "Babi" once too often, isn't it?
Thank me again for pointing you out to you that according to the site
that is what Nima's contribution is and that your assertions on Nima
or my link with the contents of the site is simply your as well as
Hammond's wrong guess.
bayani....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You were going to tell us which bit in that site were distortions!
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7d2eee9-b5db-4553...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 9:25 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
> "303" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e10638a3-1559-45fc...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...>
> On Jul 14, 6:37 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>BS snip>
>
> > And the point was?
>
> The point is that when you say "we" I can't figure out who you speak for.
> Apparently the Bayanis (that is, you and Steve) do not use the term Babis
> to
> describe yourselves, while you and the white mice do.
>
> I'd draw a picture, but this is usenet and I can only post text.
>
> - All Bad
BB: Do you acknowledge that given what is in Bayan and even by what is in
your Aqdas, the term Bayani better describes those who believe in teh
Point and have not changed their allegiance since then despite Husayn-
Ali's claim?
You've convinced me. Now what?
- All Bad
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:834306a0-b4a2-4bec...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Nima/W. Azal says he uses the term "Babi" on the Bayanic site to refer to
Bayanis. This is what _he_ says.
- All Bad
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, that is encouraging. (Just) hopefully you encourage other Bahais
to acknowledge something as simple as that.
Call me greedy! Do you acknowledge that there was nothing unbayanic in
Subh-i Azal entering Lady Fatima into Seyyid Muhammad's matrimony?
bayani....@gmail.com
wrote:
> <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't he clarify that?
PaulHammond
When did I say "I was going"?
I ACTUALLY said "I already have". Look for my earlier posts on this
thread. As I suggested yesterday:
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e26464b9-f2a6-4e79...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
BB: Well, that is encouraging. (Just) hopefully you encourage other Bahais
to acknowledge something as simple as that.
I was telling you about Wahid Azal, the one you call Nima, referring to
Bayanis as Babis. He is not a Baha'i. Good luck w/ him.
BB: Call me greedy! Do you acknowledge that there was nothing unbayanic in
Subh-i Azal entering Lady Fatima into Seyyid Muhammad's matrimony?
Greedy! It looks wrong.
- All Bad
All Bad
<bayani....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2121bab4-a188-4988...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
BB: Didn't he clarify that?
His clarification was that because he was one, he could do whatever he felt
like, or something like that. I would have thought that if he were one, and
there were something wrong w/ identifying Bayanis as Babis, then he would
stop doing that. I'll let you sort it out.
- All Bad
303
wrote:
> His clarification was that because he was one, he could do whatever he felt
> like, or something like that. I would have thought that if he were one, and
> there were something wrong w/ identifying Bayanis as Babis, then he would
> stop doing that. I'll let you sort it out.
Since the early believers in the Bayan are called BABIs, and since the
pejorative term Azali was termed by your center of the covenant of dog
as a phrase of derision; since whenever you are caught with your pants
down you obfuscate and sleight of hand into irrelevant misdirections,
there is nothing to sort out.