New Domain for Bayanic.Com
NUR
abrahamreyes9
> http://www.theprimalpoint.com/
Wow what an amazing site! ... lol I thought it was Azalis not
Bayanis? :)
NUR
You thought wrong.
abrahamreyes9
Are you a bayani NUR?
NUR
Duh!
abrahamreyes9
How many Bayanis are there ... stats mate stats SHOW ME THE STATS
NUR
You first, matey. We proved years and years ago that the official 6
million Bahais figure is a total crock, and so your figures are a
complete lie. But I say again, there are more valuable diamonds
amongst the Bayanis than all the worthless pebbles composing your cult
combined. DIG?
abrahamreyes9
I wasn't talking about Bahai's stats I was talking about about YOUR
faiths statistics
I bet there are more bahais in my community than there are in your
world of bayanis.
Why do you have such a low number of believers? Oh thats right cause
they're all related to you
Show me some figures matey
NUR
> On Feb 6, 10:33 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 6:04 am, abrahamreyes9 <abrahamrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 8:23 pm, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:29 am, abrahamreyes9 <abrahamrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 12:08 pm, NUR <hurak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 5, 8:39 am, abrahamreyes9 <abrahamrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 4, 11:51 pm, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.theprimalpoint.com/
>
> > > > > > > Wow what an amazing site! ... lol I thought it was Azalis not
> > > > > > > Bayanis? :)
>
> > > > > > You thought wrong.
>
> > > > > Are you a bayani NUR?
>
> > > > Duh!
>
> > > How many Bayanis are there ... stats mate stats SHOW ME THE STATS
>
> > You first, matey. We proved years and years ago that the official 6
> > million Bahais figure is a total crock, and so your figures are a
> > complete lie. But I say again, there are more valuable diamonds
> > amongst the Bayanis than all the worthless pebbles composing your cult
> > combined. DIG?
>
> I wasn't talking about Bahai's stats I was talking about about YOUR
> faiths statistics
You are NOBODY to talk about anyone stats. But take yours and lump
them!
> I bet there are more bahais in my community than there are in your
> world of bayanis.
And I bet there are more pebbles in my backyard than all of you put
together
> Show me some figures matey
Go fuck yourself, and show me that figure!
abrahamreyes9
Theres no way you can compare bahai vs bayani when it comes to
stats... the only bayanis are part of 1 family who will die out soon
Muwahah
NUR
In your dreams. So are you threatening my family's life now, are you?
> Muwahah
BWAHAHA
Abraham Reyes
To those it may concern :
I have followed this latest incarnation of Nima Hazini with some
interest and a great deal of sorrow. After much prayer and meditation
I find it necessary to mention the following.
I have known Nima for nearly eight years Unlike most of you I have met
him in person on more than one occasion and he has been a guest in our
home in Omaha Nebraska. In short we have been friends in the real
world and not simply names in cyberspace.
In those eight years I have observed Nima cycle through a number of
activities political as well as spiritual including more than one
dalliance with the mystical dimension. Nima is a very bright young man
and has used that intellect to keep the"mystical" at bay. It is one
thing to grasp mystical realites as an intellectual , it is another
all together to *know* it at the level of the heart. Nima has always
used his mind to keep his heart at bay. You see mysticiam, in the
final analysis, is about heart surrender and giving up the personal
will. That is something Nima has been unable to do. One must be able
to not only talk the talk but also tp walk the walk. For whtever
reasons Nima has been unwilling the engage the heart surrender in
order to walk the walk
Rather he has over the past two to three years dug himself such a deep
hole of anger, bitterness and angst as to find little or no way back
to the Best beloved. If there is anything Nima has craved all these
years it is what might be called salvation or redemption. I have
watched him move so far in to that hole that salvation continued to
allude him. It now appears rather than surrender his heart he has
chosen another route. That one is to achieve salvation by proclaimng
himself as his own savior. There is a profound irony in this in that
what he most desired and needed he was unable to allow himself to
obtain without engaging the supreme act of narcissim, that of
proclaming himself his own savior, messiah or manifestation whichever
concept you prefer. It is a terrible shame and one fraught with
spiritual peril.
Nima, like all,human beings has numerous imperfections which make him
anything but the "perfect man" for the age. I will not discuss those
imperfections as the were divulged as a result of a friendship of the
past. Out of respect for that memory I will only note they are not the
sort of things that make one a Messiah.
As Nima well knows I have been for years attracted to ,blessed and
cursed, as the case may be, by an abiding attraction to Baha u llah as
the Maid of Heaven. We have discussed this numerous times in person
and by telephone . I have written about the subject as well in terms
called the BahaMaiden Dialogue. In our last telephone conversation in
early Novemnber we talked about this and I cautioned him ,once again,
about the fear and danger inherent in aproaching that glorious
reality. One must leave the ego and will behind and that can be a
frightening experience indeed which is why mystical encounter has been
variously described as awe filled or awe -full. I suppose then it is
no surprise that he gave no indication to me as of early November of
his latest interest in the subject and his subsequent pronouncements.
I will say after much prayer that my own recent experience of that
Maiden confirms from Her that Nima never has been, is not currently,
and never will be anything approaching a messiah, Him whom God shall
make Manifest, or anything approaching the spiritual return of Quddus
or any of the great Babi's.
It is my prayer and hope that Nima will some day engage the heart
surrender and know the joy as well face the fear that comes with such
surrender. It will require he let go of his anger, hatred, and
bitterness and let go of the desire , so common in children, of
wanting the entire world to be their personal "oyster". If and when
that day comes we will once again be friends. In the meantime I can
only watch and pray from a distance knowing full well that such things
are impervious to reason or evidence.
warm regards,
Terry Culhane
NUR
*Terry Culhane's attempt at defense of the tyrannical and oppressive
system of interrogation discloses the appalling lack of liberty and
freedom of conscience within the baha'i faith and its betrayal of
Abdul-Baha's Teachings*:
From: TLCULHANE <tlcu...@aol.com>
Subject: My case - a letter to my friends
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 2:12 PM
Dear Friends,
I had hoped my case would not be a topic of public conversation
and
especially an uninformed topic of conversation. One of the dangers of
lack of
knowledge is sheer speculation that allows for the assertion of
preformed
ideological templates to dominate discourse.
Please consider this an open letter to my friends. It will be the
only
public response I will make. If anyone wishes to continue to speak
with me
about it I will do that in a private conversation as among friends.
In February I had a meeting with two ABm's. The original purpose
of the
meeting was to gather information about a workshop I had presented at
Bosch
Bahai school. Two people (out of 62 attendees) had written to the
House of
Justice protesting what they understood about my comments.
The House of Justice passed the 'protest message' to the NSA and the
Continental Counselors for follow up. The Counselors in turn
authorized two
ABm's to meet with me to gather information about what had taken place
at
Bosch. So far so good.
One of the ABm's concluded that this was an opportunity to do more
than
inquire after information. This person effectively conducted the
meeting as
though it was an interrogation of my theological views among them my
views of
the station of Baha u llah, my interest in the Maiden writings of Baha
u llah
and ,of course, my discussion of the Mashriqu l Adhkar . That was the
problem
as well as how the meeting was arranged and conducted by the ABm.
I was not informed two ABm's would be present, nor who authorized
the meeting
or to whom the ABm's would be reporting.
Friends I am quite human and cycled through a series of emotions
from anger
to betrayal,to disgust, to bewilderment and frustration and relief. I
went
thorugh this twice, once in February and again in May after the April
7 letter
became public.
How did I handle this 'test' of my faith and why have I *chosen* to
remain a
Bahai? The simple explanation is I love Baha u llah. As many of you
know I am a
mystic by temperament which explains my attraction to the spiritual
and social
reality of the Mashriqu l Adhkar and the "Maiden " writings of Baha u
llah.
Both times during my "emotional cycle" S/He came to me and I was
draped in that
"silken Robe of Light." As best I can describe in words we "talked"
about my
pain and anguish and " My distress and banishment in this remote
prison." This
is the personal God who reached in and touched my soul and said I
understand
and shared with me that "perfume of a grace which to tongue can
describe." I
was reminded that "this not a field for the foolish and faint of
heart." If I
thought the vision of Baha u llah was easily realized, that all the
hope and
redemption that His message represents was attainable without effort
or without
transformation I learned better. The course of human history in
general and
religious history in particular will change but it will be through
multigenerational blood sweat and spirtual tears.
In the midst of this struggle I wrote to the Counselors and the
House of
Justice , the latter on March 30. I have met with Counselor Birkland
twice and
we have spoken fro several hours about my case and what I called in my
letter
to the House the "far too widespread culture of fear and suspicion in
the
community.
The Counselor extened me an apology for what happened and he assumed
responsibility for it. There was no passing the buck or kicking the
proverbial
dog in his response to me. Our conversations were honest ,open and
reflective
on both our parts. He was gracious and loving in his conversations
with me. he
also clearly said to me that as Counselor he has no problem with my
theological
views and they were not at issue. This saga has also affected my
community and
he has been most supportive of the LSA and its goals and has
publically
expressed that support. I have greast respect for anyone who is
capable of
admitting mistakes,assuming responsibility for them and looking for
ways to
move forward and heal divisions and misunderstandings. This is exactly
how
Counselor Birkland responded to me and therfore it can be stated I
have great
respect for his character as a man.
In the course of my conversations with the Counselor and my
observation of
his interaction with the LSA and the community I have been able to
observe in
action what I write about as the *ethic* of consultation and its
requirements
of mutual recognition and reciprocity. I understand consultation to be
a *non
adversarial* form of communicative action and the recognition and
reciprocity
involved is fundamentally about the recognition (the irfan) tha we are
all made
in the image and likeness of God. That is the starting point of Bahai
discourse
in my view. I have observed the Counselor engage what I write about.
I had
similar conversations with Counselor Ghadirian, and Paul Dodenhoff
will
understand my reference here, whom I found to be an example of Abraham
Heschels
"analysis of piety."
In late May the famous April 7 letter became public.I was very
concerned
about its reference to the Mashriqu l Adhkar as I had raised this
question
directly with the House in my March 30 letter to them. This letter ,
which I
have said before and wil state again is one of the more poorly written
letters
to come from the World Centre. Poor writing style is somethging which
can be
clarified and improved upon.Iit is not *proof" of dictatorial
behavior. On may
26 I wrote a summary of my views of the Mashriqul Adhkar and sent a
copy of
it,with reference to my March 30 letter to the House of Justice. On
May 31 I
received a letter from the House of Justice which stated:
" The House of Justice very much appreciates the clarity and
candor of your
expression in regard to the issues troubling you. It wishes, first of
all, for
you to be assured that it did not say or feel that you had violated
any of its
policies or had been disobedient to it in relation to your discussions
about
the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar."
The response of the House of Justice ia hardly a case of
"Plausibility
structures and denial. I am perfectly capable of discussing
"plausability" as
it is used in the sociology of knowledge especially as formulated by
Berger and
Luchmann.The ideological twist to it is innacurate on theoertical
grounds and
inapplicable to the coments of the House of Justice. Their letter was
a
response to my questions two months earlier before anything related to
the
April 7 letter becamea public issue. The disingenious combination of
the
sociologocal concept of plausability structuresd with the ideological
concept
of "plausible denial" is an example of a preformed template that will
generate
conclusions even in the absence of substantive knowledge of a case. In
this
situation the facts of my case.
My conversations with the Counseolrs have reinforced my convivtion
that
this comm ent in the April 7 letter did not and was not intended to
refer to my
actions. As early as March 20 Counselor Birklnad reiterated that point
to me in
our conversation. I aslo know for a *fact* that the Counselor had been
in
communication with the World Centre about my case and that the House
wanted the
Counselor to meet with me and resolve this problem.
Furthermore the House of Justice wrote:
"That the meeting to which you were invited by the Auxiliary Board
members
became a cause of distress to you is deeply regretted by the House of
Justice.
But it was glad to learn from your email that Counsellor Stephen
Birkland met
with you subsequently in a sympathetic attempt to remedy the
difficulties of
your experience. You should therefore feel assured that your concern
has been
taken seriously and an earnest attempt made to deal with it. The
House of
Justice trusts that the burden of your heart has thus been relieved
and that
you can now refocus your energies on continuing your dedicated service
to the
Cause."
Friends, dictators and totalitarians do not express deep regret
that a
soul was disressed or estranged by certian actions. They most
assuredly do not
take steps or direct that steps be taken to resolve the anguish or
distess of
*one human being. yet that is exactly what the House of Justice did in
my case.
They intervened on my behalf because of the mistakes that were made in
my case
by Institutional representatives.
For anyone who is unable to distinguish bettwen acts of love and
care and
hypocritical PR damage control I have compassion. This kind of
cynical linkage
is an example Orwellian newspeak where love becomes hate. Are we
really so long
gone and so far from Baha u llah that acts of love,
kindness,magnanimity cannot
be perceived for what they are?Iis the world truly that barren ?
I am many things but pollyanna is not one of them. I am Jamesian
twice born
soul who has hope. And that hope involves believing in spite of the
evidence
and watching the evidence change. It is easy to be cynical. In a world
that
needs the hope and promise that life can be lived at a higher level
and that
needs to know human history canchange,however slowly or haltingly
cynicism and
prolonged despair is a betrayal of the centuries long aspirations of
human
beings. I believe with all my heart that anyone,of whatever background
or
religious tradition who indulges such despair has not simply forgotten
God but
has forgotten humanity. My challenge to my friends is to forego the
temptation
of cynicism and despair because the "wondrous system" of Baha u llah
has not
attained perfection. Perfection and transformation do not happen in
the
abstract they happen with real human beings. The "system" of Baha u
llah will
only function as well as the people who comprise it. Their is much
work to be
done and it is the spiritual obligation of each of us to engage the
struggle of
hope and redemption in both it smeaning of overcoming 'sin' and
imperfection
and as the fulfillment of a promise.
I dont say this inognorance. I say this as one who has had his faith
severely
tested in ways that are only meaningful to me. in the past year both
my
daughters bran surgery and stroke and my threological interogation
have been
major spurituakl battles. They have rocked me at the core of me being.
Baha u
llah uppoed the ante for terry Culhane. I want to "see": my beloeved
and She
sais "howmany Husayns greater thanthee have professed their love. I
hope my
willingness to engage the struggle and keep turning to Baha ullah is
some
measure of my love. I often said that if ones wants Paradise, Baghdad
the abode
of peace,the road to that *place* passes through Tehren and the Siyah
Chal.
Each of us has our Siyah Chal our secret place of feasr and despair of
dreans
lost and hopes dashed. yet I can say that we are never alne , the
odder of
that silken Robe of Light is there. Our response is a matter of
"learning the
art of loves ways and the secret of heart surrender." My dear friends
go head
and learn that art and surrender. Give yourself permission! I am a
nobody, a
garden level mystic who Baha u llah did not abandon and who the House
of
Justice did not abandon.
The House is keenly aware of the limitations and imperfections of the
community ,including the functioning of its administrative bodies And
they did
not ask me to preten all was yet paradise, there was no denial nor
attempt to
stiffle me ot shut me up. They acknowledge reality but hey refuse to
sink into
a cynical despair.
They offered me the same challenge Baha u llah has offered me to
believe and
do the work in spite of any evidence and to watch and make the
evidence change.
In response to my concerns about problems "mistakes" and the culture
of fear
and suspicion that I noted they wrote"
" A perspective that may assist in your review of the experience is
that
the institutions of the Faith operating throughout the world, like
individual
believers, are struggling to achieve the high ideals set for them in
the
Writings, and they inevitably make some mistakes even with the best of
motives.
Fortunately, the consequences of such mistakes often provide them with
the
empirical bases for shaping their evolution towards maturity. To the
extent
that the individuals affected are able to deal successfully, both
spiritually
and practically, with the tests involved, the institutions and
individuals
derive mutual benefits. The believers and their God-given
institutions are
intimately joined in a common endeavor to advance the development of a
new
World Order. A significant degree of magnanimity on the part of each
is
essential."
The House of Justice openly acknowledges mistakes were made and have
been
made. Please be fair in your judgement. Do dictators openly
acknowledge
mistakes on the part of governing bodies and express *hope* that both
those
governing bodies and the individuals harmed will learn from them and
move
forward?
They express the recognition that mistakes are trying and can
cause
"distress" to souls. They also expres the *Hope* that individuals such
as
myself will 'hang in there.' And most important they recognize that
';hanging
inther ' requires 'magnanimity". Even a dictoinary can provide us with
the
richness and challenge of the concept of magnanimity. Yet in the midst
of all
that and inthe recognition of mistakes they asked me to consider the
struggles of the Institutions in our common enterprise. In other words
they
asked me to consult, to put *my money where my mouth is about
consultation as
mutual recognition and reciprocity. That recognition is that we are in
this
together. Not withstanding that request they close that section of my
letter
with the following comment.
" This does not mean, of course, that mistakenactions on their part
should be
ignored."
Again be fair in your judgement. Do those bent on dictatorial
control suggest
that mistakes should not be ignored.?
There is no monolithic system around the Bahai world bent on
crushing
people. There are folks everywhere with varying perceptins of what is
important
about the Faith of Baha u llah. We all have to face the struggle to
engage the
standards of Baha u llah and not succumb to cynicism and despair when
the
inevitable imperfections and "mistakes" appear. That is even more true
when we
encounter the bonna fide jerks within the community. Baha u llah
promised many
things in His redemptive message. He did not promise that jerks would
not
become Bahais. How do we respond to mistakes -- with magnanimity and
with the
expectation that consultation must and will take place to address
mistakes.
That consultation is a non adversarial communicative ethic that
recognizes and
reciprocates the spiritual dignity and humanity, the likeness of God
present in
each participant.
What message do *I* see in my recent situation? I do not see
evidence o fa
monolithic power structure. I see abundant evidence of people willing
to work
to overcome divisns and heal hearts and minds. I see people watching
my
response without my knowing it. Far from frivinga wedge between
people , betwen
beleivers and governing bodes it apears my experience and my response
are doing
something else. I know of three people who have enrolled as Bahai's
because of
my experience. I know of at least a dozen more, previously unknown to
me who
have been uninvolved or marginally involved in the community but who
have come
out of the wood work and want to engage the spiritual struggle to
transform
themsleves and offer hope and redemption to the world. That is the
message of
my case. If it were in my power that is the message I would offer to
you my
friends in your journey to the land of the Most Holy.
warmest regards,
Terry Culhane
abrahamreyes9
This is what your poisoned spirit cannot recognize... bluffer
charlatan. Well, you became a Azali because nobody crowned you as the
supreme leader of the liberal Baha'is. Nevertheless, you could neither
practice the traditional Azalism that you adopted. You tried in vain
to
reform the dying Azalism due to that your aspirations were too
heretical and narcissistic. Your pathetic cult does not exist and you
have not obtained who any Bayani group comes to the light in America,
Europe or Australia.
NUR
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
"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
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 while supporting
the bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Quote
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very
technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably
bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of
declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)] to silence the
individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend
upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are
infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It
is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals go
away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no
credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any
energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the
outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this
organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm
Professor Juan Cole, February 23, 1999:
"There is nothing to be puzzled by. Right wing Baha'is only like to
hear the sound of their own voices (which are the only voices they
will admit to being "Baha'i" at all). Obviously, the world is so
constructed that they cannot in fact only hear their own voices. They
are forced to hear other voices that differ from theirs. This most
disturbs them when the voices come from enrolled Baha'is or when the
voices speak of the Baha'i faith. The way they sometimes deal with the
enrolled Baha'is is to summon them to a heresy inquiry and threaten
them with being shunned if they do not fall silent. With non-Baha'is
or with ex-Baha'is, they deal with their speech about the faith by
backbiting, slandering and libelling the speaker. You will note that
since I've been on this list I have been accused of long-term heresy,
of "claiming authority," of out and out lying (though that was
retracted, twice), of misrepresentation, of 'playing fast and loose
with the facts,' and even of being 'delusional.' I have been accused
of all these falsehoods by *Baha'is*, by prominent Baha'is. I have
been backbitten by them. This shows that all the talk about the danger
a sharp tongue can do, all the talk about the need for harmony, for
returning poison with honey, for a sin-covering eye, is just *talk*
among right wing Baha'is. No one fights dirtier than they when they
discover a voice they cannot silence and cannot refute....
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole71.htm
BAHAI TACTICS according to Henry Tad
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/0c1210a627cdaae3
Royal Falcon
NUR
Steve Blomberg
It is extra ordinary but understandable that most of those sympathetic
to Bahai cult are inflicted with ignorance in a very similar way. The
type of magnet that exists in Bahaism can only attract this type of
specie whose greatest achievement is monkey see, monkey do; no
question asked.
Abbas the great fool coined ‘Azalism’ in fear of the heavy shadow of
Bayan, something that his father the great pretender never dared to
utter himself, and his grandson denied there was ever the religion of
Bayan.
The pathetic cult that the pathetic sick Husayn-Ali set up fed itself
from the fountains of the religion of Bayan, discharged lies and
produced killers and criminals and gather around it the ignorant.
It is of no consequence if a million blind claim the Sun doesn’t
exist.
Steve Blomberg
Ok! You win in these terms: The number of people who believe Aqdas is
a worthless rehash of a few of provisions of Bayan and that Husayn-Ali
who for most of his life was a subject of the Point and His Mirror and
prided himself in "grovelling in the earth of abasements on the watch
for his (Subh-i Azal) graces" is nothing compared to those who believe
Husayn-Ali the liar who sold the idea that Bayan was up for renewal in
less than 10 years and that he had to make few changes to fix it! So,
he prohibited burning books because in his sick mind he thought that
is what was provisioned in Bayan, allowed smoking because he enjoyed
drugs and allowed onion because he liked the stinking smell of it.
Finnegan's Wake
Isn't it amazing that when nimikins is under threat of exposure for
the char;latan that he irrefutably is, his entire "peanut gallery" is
wheeled out to distract attention?
And none of them use their real names ... thinks!!!! ... are they all
aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality ... or is there some
other compelling reason why these cowards skulk behind an alias?
i think we should be told!
NUR
Exposure, you say? So far all the exposures have been ours of you. But
you keep making an empty threat without coughing up the goods whereas
we have been coughing goods right and left.
> And none of them use their real names ... thinks!!!! ... are they all
> aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality ... or is there some
> other compelling reason why these cowards skulk behind an alias?
>
> i think we should be told!
Whatever! Yes, Steve Blomberg, Gazamat, May, Reform Bahai, NUR, George
Orwell, Viv, Pat Kohli, et al, are all my identities. LOL! There's
only you and I here. LOL! So why don't you stop sulking and sue us/me!
Steve Blomberg
You just confirmed the point I made earlier about the type of specie
the Bahai cult attracts.
In case you have not yet caught up, there is no requirement for
participants in the google groups to identify themselves with their
passport names. If that were the case, this would have happened at the
time of registration.
The fact is I couldn't care less if your name was Finnegan or any
other stupid name. May be it is, may be it isn't. May be my name is
Steve or may be it isn't.
So, what was it that the attention was being distracted from? Are you
a(wake)?
Now, do you want to go back and try again making an attempt to respond
to what I said or you rather play Bahai again.
PaulHammond
wrote:
Truly amazing!
> And none of them use their real names
I hear, not using your real name on an internet discussion site is
actually a criminal offence! Though I'm not entirely convinced my
source for this information knows what he's talking about.
>... thinks!!!! ... are they all
> aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality ... or is there some
> other compelling reason why these cowards skulk behind an alias?
>
You mean - you think they might have something to hide?
btw - whatever happened to that William Pleasant that used to post
around here from time to time? I haven't heard about him in years.
> i think we should be told!-
NUR
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174894130.html
Community order for internet pervert.
Biggleswade Chronicle (Biggleswade, England) | February 15, 2008
Former Gravenhurst man used the name Betty to access child porn.
An internet paedophile with a history of sex offences going back to
1969 has been given a three-year community order.
Paul Hammond, 57, had used the name "Betty" and "Betty Boop" while
collecting images from a smart group used by people distributing child
pornography.
Luton Crown Court heard that, as part of an operation started in 2005,
police obtained "Betty's" IP address and traced it to Hammond's then
home in Barton Road, Gravenhurst.
Prosecutor Simon Ash said officers raided the home in November ...
-
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-175132217.html
from Luton Crown Court
An internet paedophile with a history of sex offences going back to
1969 has been given a three-year community order.
Paul Hammond, 57, had used the name 'Betty' and 'Betty Boop' while
collecting images from a smart group used by people distributing child
pornography.
Luton Crown Court heard on Friday that, as part of an operation
started in 2005, police obtained 'Betty's' IP address and traced it to
Hammond's then home in Barton Road, Gravenhurst.
Prosecutor Simon Ash said officers raided the home in November 2006
and seized a laptop, ...
-
Paul Andrew Hammond - CAUTION (Baha'i Internet Agency hack)
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
See,
"The question evaded and dodged by Baha'i Internet Agency hack Paul
Andrew Hammond"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
"Who is Paul Hammond and what is his interest in Bahaism: Keel
University, British Imperial policy and the Bahaim"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
"When Paul Andrew Hammmond was a Bahai"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/tree/browse_frm/mon...
See also Baha'i CULT FAQ
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
NUR
> btw - whatever happened to that William Pleasant that used to post
> around here from time to time? I haven't heard about him in years.
I hear he paid a visit to Davy Jones' locker, kiddie fiddler, which is
where you, Dead Weed and your entire ad hoc department in the soon to
be unemployed British Labour government should go for a vacation as
well.
PaulHammond
impersonation" and internet aliases is.
Because all I can see behind here is a piece of your normal spam - and
the fact that YOU personally, Nima "fuckwits" Hazini cannot tell the
difference between Paul Hammond from Peterborough, or Paul Hammond the
musician, Paul Hammond the lecturer at Leeds University or Paul
Hammond the convicted user of kiddie porn from Bigglewade, or Paul
Hammond the Tennis Player, also at Biggleswade.
is not evidence of any damn thing, so far as I can see.
In what constituted my crime? Apart from the fact that I argue with
you and that REALLY pisses you off?
Paul Hammond (the one and only!)
Finnegan's Wake
I entirely agree. Perhaps you could tell that to the gobshite who
keeps trying to pin a paedophile label on Paul despite all the
evidence pointing the other way. He is, allegedly, your co-
religionist and is indeed a most fitting, cultured and personable
ambassador for it. Indeed were I, or anybody else, to judge the
Bayani Faith on Nimikins we could not but conclude it to be a cesspit
of inhumanity and corruption not unlike, the Bahai Faith on which the
people of the Bayan bestow these epithets - pot, kettle, black, in
other words. But then I suspect that's the purpose - if the people of
the Bayan spew filth at the Bahais (and they do not respond in kind)
then the Bahais emerge as gleaming white angels by comparison to the
dirt that condemns them.
> The fact is I couldn't care less if your name was Finnegan or any
> other stupid name. May be it is, may be it isn't. May be my name is
> Steve or may be it isn't.
What a man says is more important than how he says it. What a man
calls himself is less important that what he does. What matters is
what one, as an individual, contributes to the betterment of the human
lot - no matter how small that contribution is.
BTW "Finnegan" is not a stupid name - none bestowed by a parent are.
Tim Finnegan is not my real name - I bear it in honour of a great
Irishman... his parents bestowed it on him.
> So, what was it that the attention was being distracted from? Are you
> a(wake)?
Just about
> Now, do you want to go back and try again making an attempt to respond
> to what I said or you rather play Bahai again.
This you have to listen to and accept ... otherwise we go back to the
name-calling ... I am not a Bahai. I was one years ago - I was fucked
about by them. Years after that happened I came online - in 2000 to
be precise - and I got even by causing them a lot of problems. Now I
am detatched from it all - Bayanis, reform Bahai etc ad nauseam - a
plague on all your petty little houses for you almost all present as
narrow-minded, petty, arrogant, opinionated pedants arguing about
whose imaginary friend is the best. Nobody can prove (or disprove)
the existence of God far less that he speaks and speaks alone through
one's own self chosen prophet. Would that I could ever meet a
religionist who could admit that he might just have got it wrong ...
and for my part, if I have got it wrong, than I'll have some
explaining to do when I cross over ... assuming there is a passing
over.
So strip God away from it and what we are left with is or ought to be
a common humanity that demands that we treat all men with respect ...
yes! even the English. And that demands honesty, integrity, courtesy,
a willingness to listen, respect, a regard for the sensibilities of
others ... seasoned with a little humour, lest it become boring.
Let me add one other thing - rascality is a part of ny nature but so
is a sense of fairness. I will cut bullshit to the quick.
When I was last here I had decided to leave for good. I disenrolled
from all the other Bahai related lists I was on and intended to just -
like all good soldiers - fade away. I have only returned because a few
weeks ago I was supplied with a document which heavily tends to
support a proposition that Nima Hazini aka Wahid Azal is a spy,
operative and agent provocateur for a Bahai sect and has been for many
years. For good reason i.e. the protection of the source, I am not in
a position to publish this document at this time. However its content
is such that it does allow me to re-visit and re-evaluate historic
events in which he was involved and from which many people were
disadvantaged. I believe that analysis will lead to a conclusive
finding that either Nima Hazini is afflicted by profound learning
difficulties OR he is operating here under a fraudulent agenda.
Finnegan's Wake
There is an old proverb - "There's nane sae blind as cannae see!"
Putting evidence before nimikins and expecting him to take cognisance
of it is like holding up a poster at a Stevie Wonder concert and
expecting him to see it.
But you can take a pat on the back - you're number one on the list of
Enemies of the Reich that mimikins is supposed/expected/required to
eliminate from this site.
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:36 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, maybe you could explain to me what the difference between "false
> > impersonation" and internet aliases is.
>
> > Because all I can see behind here is a piece of your normal spam - and
> > the fact that YOU personally, Nima "fuckwits" Hazini cannot tell the
> > difference between Paul Hammond from Peterborough, or Paul Hammond the
> > musician, Paul Hammond the lecturer at Leeds University or Paul
> > Hammond the convicted user of kiddie porn from Bigglewade, or Paul
> > Hammond the Tennis Player, also at Biggleswade.
>
> > is not evidence of any damn thing, so far as I can see.
>
> > In what constituted my crime? Apart from the fact that I argue with
> > you and that REALLY pisses you off?
>
> > Paul Hammond (the one and only!)
>
> There is an old proverb - "There's nane sae blind as cannae see!"
There's an even older proverb - "The sinful sin as a matter of course"
Start HERE (Sourcewatch):
1. Baha'i Faith
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%27i_Faith
2. Baha'i Internet Agency
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency
3. An Episcopalian view of Baha'ism
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/interfaith/lessons_for_christians_in_the.php
4. Then see,
SECTS OF BAHAIS: A Taxonomy of Baha'i Sects, http://www.sectsofbahais.com/
&
5. Documentary film by independent Israeli film maker Naama Pyritz:
BAHA'IS IN MY BACKYARD
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
6. LAWSUIT
Comment: Larger Haifan Baha'i organization sues smaller Orthodox
Baha'i faith for trademark infringement on the name Baha'i and loses.
US NSA vs OBF (Orthodox Baha'i Faith)
Regarding the court victory by the Orthodox Baha'is, and the suit
brought by the Haifan Bahai organization against them:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html
Judge's decision
http://www.truebahai.info/court/139-opinion.pdf
**Appellate hearing (Feb 2009)***
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/LF1FFZY0.mp3
Comment: This is an interesting listen.
Chicago Tribune Article
Monday, May 18, 2009
Baha’i rift: Baha’is upset with Orthodox Baha’i Faith
Mainstream group doesn’t want the name Baha’i by any other group
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/18/local/chi-bahai-18-may18
-
7. BAHAI Tactics & Techniques
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Quote
8: THEORY OF BAHA’I LYING & EQUIVOCATION
See Susan Stiles Maneck,
http://bahai-library.com/bsr/bsr06/62_maneck_hikmat.htm
WISDOM AND DISSIMULATION IN THE BAHA’I WRITINGS: The Use and meaning
of Hikmat in the Baha’i Writings
QUOTE
"In many cases hikmat calls for the apparent suspension of a Bahá'í
principle in order to ensure the protection of the Faith."
Comment: In other words Baha'is may lie under any circumstance to
ensure the protection of their organizational cohesiveness.
-
9: BAHA'I ADMINISTRATIVE STALINISM
See Critique of Baha'i Administration (defunct as of 2006)
http://bahaiadmin.blogspot.com/
QUOTE
"We don't want to be like those people who want to see God with their
own eyes, or hear His melody with their own ears, because we have been
given the gift of being able to see through the eyes of the House of
Justice and listen through the ears of the House of Justice." - Bahai
Counselor Rebeque Murphy
To hear this section of her talk go to:
http://media1.bahai.us/tab/Highlights/Sunday/30_Counselor_Murphy_Rema...
(Link now defunct)
http://bahai-library.com/published.uhj/counsellors.html
THE INSTITUTION OF THE COUNSELLORS
A Document Prepared by the Universal House of Justice
January 29 2001
Quote
Protection of the Cause (pp. 15-16)
Although deepening the friends' understanding of the Covenant and
increasing their love and loyalty to it are of paramount importance,
the duties of the Auxiliary Board members for Protection do not end
here. The Board members must remain ever vigilant, monitoring the
actions of those who, driven by the promptings of ego, seek to sow the
seeds of doubt in the minds of the friends and undermine the Faith. In
general, whenever believers become aware of such problems, they should
immediately contact whatever institution they feel moved to turn to,
whether it be a Counsellor, an Auxiliary Board member, the National
Spiritual Assembly or their own Local Assembly. It then becomes the
duty of that institution to ensure that the report is fed into the
correct channels and that all the other institutions affected are
promptly informed. Not infrequently, the responsibility will fall on
an Auxiliary Board member, in coordination with the Assembly
concerned, to take some form of action in response to the situation.
This involvement will include counselling the believer in question;
warning him, if necessary, of the consequences of his actions; and
bringing to the attention of the Counsellors the gravity of the
situation, which may call for their intervention. Naturally, the Board
member has to exert every effort to counteract the schemes and arrest
the spread of the influence of those few who, despite attempts to
guide them, eventually break the Covenant.
The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not
be generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where
attacks have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such
opposition will increase, become concerted, and eventually universal.
The writings clearly foreshadow not only an intensification of the
machinations of internal enemies, but a rise in the hostility and
opposition of its external enemies, whether religious or secular, as
the Cause pursues its onward march towards ultimate victory.
Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary
Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on
those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the
Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently
the friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each
crisis in God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise,
and prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the
Army of Light against the forces of darkness".
--
Letter of US NSA to Dann May & Phyllis Bernard and their response
(2006)
http://usnsadannmayresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/correspondence-of-us-nsa-dann-may-2006.html
--
10: BAHA’I CONTROL ON THEIR ELECTORAL SYSTEM – EXPOSED (Structural
features of Bahai Stalinism) (2009)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/636c4cedf90dea5b
Part 2 (2010)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/d23bf9636d2f869e
-
11: BAHAI NOTIONS of FREEDOM of CONSCIENCE according to EX-UHJ member
DOUGLAS MARTIN -- Monday, September 23, 2001
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/DMartin.htm
Quote
"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our
individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the
end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in
the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal
convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is
supreme is equivalent to "taking partners with God" which is abhorrent
to the Teachings of the Faith."
http://www.bahai-library.org/talks/martin.watson.html
-
12: NOTE especially, S.G. Wilson,
BAHAISM AND RELIGIOUS ASSASSINATION The Muslim World vol. 4, issue 4,
1914.
&
BAHAISM AND RELIGIOUS DECEPTION The Muslim World, Volume 5, Issue
2,1914-1915.
at,
http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/babidocuments%28westernsources%29
-
13: BAHA'I SCAM-ARTISTRY & FRAUD IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: A Multi-
Milliard Rial Scam By A Baha’i Company in Dubai
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/0c8df7dca08d52ce#
(2009)
14: FBI raids office of Baha’i at Univ. Florida (2009)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/97aed7a172da675/1b8eb9f1758c241b?lnk=gst&q=FBI+%2B+Bahai#1b8eb9f1758c241b
15: BAHAI BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE USA (2004)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/de706298e9a9cd6f#
16: BAHAI INCEST CASE IN PERU (2003-2004)
http://gaybahai.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/423
&
BAHAI INCEST CASE IN IRAN (2009)
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-37272920090103
17: BAHAI SPY RING IN INDIA BUSTED
http://bahaispyringnusted.blogspot.com/
-
Note
18: Baha'u'llah (the Baha'i founder) On the Critics of the Cause
In
Ma'idih-i-Asmani, vol. 4, page 355
http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/b/MAS4/mas4-355.html
Translation by Wahid Azal (Jan. 7, 2009)
QUOTE
Chapter 11
The Critics of the Cause of God (munkirin-i-amru'llah)
The Ancient Beauty in the Tablet of Habib from Maragha, which begins
with "H B hear the call of God from the direction of the throne by the
protective signs/verses (bi-ayati muhayyimin)..etc." they [i.e. Husayn
'Ali Nuri] enunciate the command (mi-farmayand) [i.e. state],
By God, the Truth, whomsoever criticizes it [i.e. Baha'ism], [which
is] possessed of the manifest, the brilliant, the high and the
perspicuous excellence, it behoveth him to ask his mother [yanbaghi
lahu bi-an yas'al min ummihi] about his origins [or 'state',
i.e.'hal', meaning he should inquire his mother about his legitimate
conception – trans.], for he shall return to the nethermost hell
[asfal al-jahim]"…
In Promulgation of Universal Peace p. 322 the following is quoted by
'Abbas Effendi from a prayer by his father, cf. THE BAHA'I FAITH AND
ISLAM (ed.) Heshmat Moayyad (The Association for Baha'i Studies:
Ottawa, 1990), p.23
Quote
O God! Whomsoever violates My Covenant, O God, humiliate him. Verily
whosoever violates My Covenant, erase and efface him.
-
19: Note Dr Sa'eed Khan on the Baha'is he knew
From Mission Problems in New Persia, 1926, p. 83, 87 & 89 quoted by
William McElwee Miller in The Baha'i Faith: It's History and
Teachings, 1973, p. 289.
Quote
"...There is no conscience with them [ i.e. the Baha'is], they keep to
no principle, they tell you what is untrue, ignoring or denying
undoubted historical facts, and this is the character of both the
leader and the led...As to morality and honesty, the whole system has
proved disappointing...I have been in contact with many Baha'is, and
have had dealings with many and have tested many, and unfortunately I
have met not a single one who could be called honest or faithful in
the full sense of these words..."
Dr Sa'eed Khan [was] a highly-respected physician...who had as a
doctor treated the second widow of the Bab, and had for a lifetime
known intimately both Babis [i.e. Bayanis] and Baha'is in Tehran and
Hamadan.
-
20: BAHAISM AND THE BRITISH Government
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home
1. (Top Secret) British Government Foreign Countries Report (no.56)
16th November 1921
2. APPRECIATION OF THE ATTACHED EASTERN REPORT NO. LXX (May 1918)
Then see,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part, the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
Note as well,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handboo...
Reference:
PALESTINE
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE
Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922
Quote
"...Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in
Europe and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December,
1919, was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services
rendered to the British Government in the early days of the
Occupation....."
See,
Wellesley Tudor Pole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellesley_Tudor_Pole
&
http://gothicimage.co.uk/leymap.html
-
21: Online Books to look at
William McElwee Miller THE BAHA'I FAITH: It's History and Teachings
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/Baha'i%20faith%20and%20Its%20Teachings%20by%20William%20McElwee%20Miller.htm
Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, BROKEN SILENCE
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/SohrabBrokenSilence.pdf
Vance Salisbury, AN EXAMINATION OF SUPPRESSION AND DISTORTION IN 20th-
CENTURY BAHA'I LITERATURE
http://bahai-library.org/unpubl.articles/suppression.html
-
22: Washington based US Baha'i Lobbyists
From Government's end: why Washington stopped working by Jonathan
Rauch, 1999, pg 41-42.
Quote
"A sign of the times was the opening of the Baha'i religion's
Washington lobbying office in July 1987, complete with a staff of four
and a budget of $400,000 - a telling moment, because the Baha'i faith
requires its members to abstain from politics. When I peaked through
the Baha'is window one day, the only remarkable feature of their
Washington office was that it looked exactly like every other
Washington office."
-
23: THE TAHERI FILES
http://taherifiles.blogspot.com/
-
24: Naser Emtesali's SCRIBD controversial Baha'i documents page
http://www.scribd.com/NaserEmtesali
&
-
25: Interesting conversation with a Muslim convert regarding Bahaism
(early 2010)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/470629758d76627a#
-
26: The Haifan Baha'i Agenda for Iran spelled out
http://haifanbahaiagendairan.blogspot.com/
-
27: Draconian Ugandan Law supported by Fundamentalist Christians,
Fundamentalist Muslims and BAHA'IS (2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/17/ugandangaysdemandfreedom
&
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/nur-i-azal/draconian-anti-gay-ugandan-law-supported-american-evangelicals-muslims-bahais?page=3
-
28: The Tahirih (in)Justice Center
"Female Circumcision & the Tahirih Justice Center" - by Mike Barker
http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker24.html
&
TAHIRIH JUSTICE EXPOSED (TJC): Shocking new details of the IRS
complaint
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1753.msg6938#msg6938
See especially, IMBRA and Tahirih Justice Center
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?board=11.0
-
29: Bayanic.Com
http://www.bayanic.com [CLICK tab BAHAISM]
& http://theprimalpoint.com (mirror site)
==CAUTION NON-BAHAIS==
NUR
> Well, maybe you could explain to me what the difference between "false
> impersonation" and internet aliases is.
Come to Australia, file a suit, and your lawyers will get all the
explantions you want.
<bs snip>
Steve Blomberg
You made a few fatal mistakes for which you were served:
You were disrespectful to the Bayani faith, and referred to it as
Azalism.
I reminded you as to who first coined it and that the entire Bahai
pretention was based on the Bayani faith.
You then failed to respond and instead questioned “…are they all
aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality …”
And hence my response to you that name and identity did not matter, a
point you concede.
In you latest ranting, I gathered you stopped being a Bahai. The rest
was just that.
I equally could not careless about anyone’s sexual interests.
“.. your co-religionist and is indeed a most fitting..
The smoke coming out of your skull points to a lot of hatred which is
probably due to years of hardship under Bahai regime. Nothing can fix
that. So I forgive you for being a lunatic.
“Indeed were I, or anybody else, to judge the Bayani Faith on ..”
Indeed, that would be a Bahai approach.
“But then I suspect that's the purpose - if the people of the Bayan
spew filth at the Bahais..”
There is no filth spew at Bahais. We are trying to say this filth has
no connection with Bayani faith.
“and they do not respond in kind ..”
You probably joined Bahaism like the other 6000000 knowing nothing
about it.
The Bahai literature is filled with filth against the faith their
founders attempted to base their pretentions. Read Shoghi’s GPB to see
them.
The reason Bahais don’t show up against Bayanis is because they run
into serious trouble when they are asked to explain how two
manifestation could occur in parallel.
“What a man says is more important than how he says it….”
Very good! Now, should I take what you have said for who you are? I
don’t think so!
“Tim Finnegan is not my real name..”
I still don’t care.
“Now I am detatched from it all - Bayanis, reform Bahai etc ..”
I am not surprised.
“a ….. narrow-minded, petty, arrogant, opinionated pedants …”
Wow! You obviously don’t have any opinion.
“Nobody can prove (or disprove) the existence of God”
I don’t think we aimed that high. My aim was to make the point that
Bahaism could not stand on the premise it said it stood.
“ And that demands honesty, integrity, courtesy, a willingness to
listen, respect, a regard for the sensibilities of others ... seasoned
with a little humour, lest it become boring.”
Boy! You are a preacher!
“I will cut bullshit to the quick.”
Well! You obviously failed to do that when you joined Bahaism.
“I have only returned because a few weeks ago I was supplied with a
document which heavily tends to ..”
I also couldn’t care about your so called document. What amazes me is
that you expect people to take your word for it!
NUR
Bollocks! Where's all the evidence to the contrary, Dermod? You and he
have made unsubstantiated assertions. You have not produced a single
leaf of actual verifiable evidence pointing to the contrary. Do so,
and then you can talk about "the evidence pointing the other way." You
have produced no verifiable evidence as yet "pointing the other way."
<snip>
> When I was last here I had decided to leave for good. I disenrolled
> from all the other Bahai related lists I was on and intended to just -
> like all good soldiers - fade away. I have only returned because a few
> weeks ago I was supplied with a document which heavily tends to
> support a proposition that Nima Hazini aka Wahid Azal is a spy,
> operative and agent provocateur for a Bahai sect and has been for many
> years.
Produce it. Your last assertion was that " that Nima Hazini aka Wahid
Azal has gone bankrupt under both names" and that you had the
evidence. When you were called to produce that evidence, you
backtracked, and now are making up a new one.
> For good reason i.e. the protection of the source, I am not in
> a position to publish this document at this time.
Because you don't have anything, and the only reason this is the new
scripted, hubristic line of the BIA, is because I publicly outed the
BIA and US military spy Michael McCarron to the BUPC group here and on
the Chicago Tribune pages. QED
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/73a2fdca13003960
And this pathetic and transparent calptrap attempt by you is further
proof positive that you are indeed on the payroll of the Haifan BAHAI
INTERNET AGENCY.
&
6. LAWSUIT
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html
Quote
QUOTE
See as well,
Haifan Baha'is lied about the late Ayatollah Montazeri's 2008 fatwa
http://montazerifatwabahai.blogspot.com/2010/02/bahais-lied-about-late-ayatollah.html
NUR
On Feb 15, 6:50 pm, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also couldn’t care about your so called document. What amazes me is
> that you expect people to take your word for it!
This link here explains the full reasons behind the BIA sour grapes of
this transparent claim put forth by the craggy little island clown
Dead Weed Low Ryder:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/73a2fdca13003960
I publicly outed one of their best agent provocateurs, a Michael
McCarron, who has since gone on to prove my claim about him. Larry and
I also blew the lid off of this site for being a BIA front,
The exposure:
ALLBELIEFS site controlled by the BAHAI INTERNET AGENCY: BEWARE!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/a7d63463d8271b52?pli=1
&
http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2009/12/allbeliefs-site-controlled-by-bahai.html
So now you have these two clowns, and their moronic posse in the
background, trying to deflect and cast reverse hubris. As you see, it
ain't working...
Obviously the BIA is also quite upset over,
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/470629758d76627a
Which can also be found, here,
http://bahaism.blogspot.com/
And that I also urge should be put on Bayanic.Com.
For everybody else, see
Bahai CULT FAQ
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
PaulHammond
> On Feb 15, 11:36 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe you could explain to me what the difference between "false
> > impersonation" and internet aliases is.
>
> Come to Australia, file a suit, and your lawyers will get all the
> explantions you want.
>
> <bs snip>
<bigger bs snip>
Oh, I see. So the answer is, no, you don't have a succinct definition
of what you mean by "false impersonation"
It cometh more and more to seem like when you retitled this thread to
insult me in the header, it should RATHER have read
Idiot NEMO knoweth not the difference between "false impersonation"
and internet aliases.
What IS the difference, please?
PaulHammond
My age would be a good start! The Gravenhurst pedophile is aged 57.
I am not.
He was apparently already involved in kiddie porn in 1968, before I
was born.
Also, my middle name IS Andrew. For some reason, you're not willing
to tell us what the middle name of the 57-year-old is. Is that
because you don't, in fact, know his middle name - or because you know
that his middle name is NOT Andrew.
You're the guy making the unsubstantiated assertions here.
You also stated that you do not, in fact, believe me to be actually
called Paul Hammond at all. In which case, you are KNOWINGLY peddling
rumours here that you don't believe in yourself. If you're going to
accuse someone else of being a convicted pedophile in public, you
ought to make DAMN sure you know your facts beforehand. You haven't
made sure of that, in the slightest degree.
I leave one part of your regular spam in here, considering how
appropriate it is to your own behaviour.
>
> -
> 7. BAHAI Tactics & Techniqueshttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Finnegan's Wake
> You made a few fatal mistakes for which you were served:
> You were disrespectful to the Bayani faith, and referred to it as
> Azalism.
I would have thought they were interchangeable but if you're sensitive
about it then we shall use Bayani. I think however you should make it
clear that it is synonomous with Azali, otherwise your references to
the way the Bahai Faith treats you will simply hang in mid air.
> I reminded you as to who first coined it and that the entire Bahai
> pretention was based on the Bayani faith.
Allegedly. Fact is that Baha claimed a fresh revelation and in the
world of religion a fresh revelation trumps an earlier one. Hence
Moses is supplanted by Jesus who is supplanted by Muhammed; he in turn
by the Bab; then he is supplanted by Baha etc.
That's the theoetical base in which the BF rests its case as the
latest religion. Of course many don't accept this - Christians accept
none of the contenders after Jesus; Muslims accept none of the
contenders after Muhammed; Bayanis refuse to accept Baha and the
Bahais just reject the latest of these revelations - that of Nima
Hazini.
None of them impress me or are accepted by me. You are entirely free
to believe what you want. I am not interested in and am not going to
get invlved in matters and differences of high theology in what I
regard as fairy tales.
> You then failed to respond and instead questioned “…are they all
> aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality …”
Mr Hazini has a "t'ing" about identities. Sauce ... goose ... gander!
If he slings mud over the identities of those who oppose him then
those who support him might just expect that a littlew mud is going to
be slung at them. It's all to do with hypocrisy.
> And hence my response to you that name and identity did not matter, a
> point you concede.
> In you latest ranting, I gathered you stopped being a Bahai. The rest
> was just that.
Describing my writing as "ranting" is grossly insulting. I decline to
treat it that way and instead deal with it on the basis that I suspect
English is not your mother tongue.
> I equally could not careless about anyone’s sexual interests.
Except, one would hope, where paedophilia is concerned. The sexual
abuse or exploitation of children is far and far the most base and
heinous crime.
>
> “.. your co-religionist and is indeed a most fitting..
> The smoke coming out of your skull points to a lot of hatred which is
> probably due to years of hardship under Bahai regime. Nothing can fix
> that. So I forgive you for being a lunatic.
Once again I am going to assume you are not trying to be offensive. I
don't do "hatred." I do not hate people because they espouse
particular beliefs well knowing that in a world as vast as this there
will be a multiplicity of beliefs. I will respect your viewpoint if
you respect mine. there is noneed to try to in flict pain or
suffering because people differe over religious beliefs or the lack
thereof.
I am not a lunatic and lunacy is not a condition that demands or
expects forgivenness.
> “Indeed were I, or anybody else, to judge the Bayani Faith on ..”
> Indeed, that would be a Bahai approach.
Actually it would be anybody's approach - anybody drifting here out of
curiosity will be repelled by the show of venom and hatred. Shoghi
wrote that the Azalis were full of venom and blind hatred and you
Bayanis go out of your way to prove he was right. You'll not prove
the Bahais wrong utilising your current tactics. Indeed the Bahais
are well pleased to see you spit venom because that's what Shoghi said
you would do. They also know that to the onlooker, if they don't
respond to this, they will look crystal clear and lilly white good
guys and you'll be the bad guys.
Now the chief Bayani spitter of venom is Mr Hazini. And he is doing
exactly what the Bahais want him to do. He drives off Bahais who come
here (the High Fans don't want Bahais to come here) and he makes the
Bahais look good. Ever wonder why? Who is he working for? Clue -
he's not working to advance the Bayani Faith because he ain't trying
to attach friends or followers thereof.
> “But then I suspect that's the purpose - if the people of the Bayan
> spew filth at the Bahais..”
> There is no filth spew at Bahais. We are trying to say this filth has
> no connection with Bayani faith.
You are not saying it very convincingly when you're supporting Mr
Hazini.
> “and they do not respond in kind ..”
> You probably joined Bahaism like the other 6000000 knowing nothing
> about it.
Well I knew a bit but when I found out more I hoofed it!
> The Bahai literature is filled with filth against the faith their
> founders attempted to base their pretentions. Read Shoghi’s GPB to see
> them.
> The reason Bahais don’t show up against Bayanis is because they run
> into serious trouble when they are asked to explain how two
> manifestation could occur in parallel.
The Bahai stance is that the most recent revelation supplants and
replaces the previous one. That is entirely logical. Since it all
ultimately depends on faith the only way you can convince anybody that
Bayan is right and Baha is wrong is with a charm offensive that shows
the people of the Bayan to be a lot nicer than the people of Baha
because theirs is a better religion.
Frankly most people are either frightened or so grossly insulted by Mr
Hazini that they conclude there is nothing at all, whatsover,
spiritually uplifting in the Bayan. He is after all its most recent
divine revelation ... allegedly.
> “What a man says is more important than how he says it….”
> Very good! Now, should I take what you have said for who you are? I
> don’t think so!
Who I am in not important and what I say should not be considered in
light of who I am but on its own merits.
> “Tim Finnegan is not my real name..”
> I still don’t care.
> “Now I am detatched from it all - Bayanis, reform Bahai etc ..”
> I am not surprised.
>
> “a ….. narrow-minded, petty, arrogant, opinionated pedants …”
> Wow! You obviously don’t have any opinion.
i think I'm entitled!
> “Nobody can prove (or disprove) the existence of God”
> I don’t think we aimed that high. My aim was to make the point that
> Bahaism could not stand on the premise it said it stood.
It all rests or falls with God ... leave him out of the argument and
therere is nothing. If God has sent Baha as the most recent
revelation than the Bayani Faith is doomed. The big question is ...
how do we know ... how can we choose? I think the traditional answer
is that if the followers of a claimant to being the possessor of God's
revelation show themselves to be transformed by adherence to his creed
then that creed has a fair claim to being right. Bahais recruit on
their presenting to potential adherents as awfully nice people ...
you'l have to be even more awfully nice if you want to trump them
> “ And that demands honesty, integrity, courtesy, a willingness to
> listen, respect, a regard for the sensibilities of others ... seasoned
> with a little humour, lest it become boring.”
> Boy! You are a preacher!
i thought that was pretty basic stuff.
NUR
> On 15 Feb, 05:56, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Well, maybe you could explain to me what the difference between "false
> > > impersonation" and internet aliases is.
>
> > Come to Australia, file a suit, and your lawyers will get all the
> > explantions you want.
>
> > <bs snip>
>
> <bigger bs snip>
>
> Oh, I see. So the answer is, no, you don't have a succinct definition
> of what you mean by "false impersonation"
I gave you one. For further clarification, seek your attorneys advice.
NUR
> My age would be a good start! The Gravenhurst pedophile is aged 57.
> I am not.
Prove. Assertion is not proof.
> He was apparently already involved in kiddie porn in 1968, before I
> was born.
Porve it. Assertion is not proof.
> Also, my middle name IS Andrew. For some reason, you're not willing
> to tell us what the middle name of the 57-year-old is. Is that
> because you don't, in fact, know his middle name - or because you know
> that his middle name is NOT Andrew.
Assertion is not proof. Prove it.
> You're the guy making the unsubstantiated assertions here.
On the contrary.
NUR
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
--
&
6. LAWSUIT
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html
-
7. BAHAI Tactics & Techniques
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
"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
Steve Blomberg
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:50 am, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You made a few fatal mistakes for which you were served:
> > You were disrespectful to the Bayani faith, and referred to it as
> > Azalism.
>
> I would have thought they were interchangeable but if you're sensitive
> about it then we shall use Bayani. I think however you should make it
> clear that it is synonomous with Azali, otherwise your references to
> the way the Bahai Faith treats you will simply hang in mid air.
claim to a new cause. He continued the path of the Point of Bayan.
>
> > I reminded you as to who first coined it and that the entire Bahai
> > pretention was based on the Bayani faith.
>
> Allegedly. Fact is that Baha claimed a fresh revelation and in the
> world of religion a fresh revelation trumps an earlier one. Hence
> Moses is supplanted by Jesus who is supplanted by Muhammed; he in turn
> by the Bab; then he is supplanted by Baha etc.
>
True. Bahaism needs to prove that it is what Bayan promised. The
latter manifestation is the fulfillemnt of the earlier not the one
before it.
> That's the theoetical base in which the BF rests its case as the
> latest religion. Of course many don't accept this - Christians accept
> none of the contenders after Jesus; Muslims accept none of the
> contenders after Muhammed; Bayanis refuse to accept Baha and the
Yep.
> Bahais just reject the latest of these revelations - that of Nima
> Hazini.
>
Did Nima say he was the promised one of Husayn-Ali. He is not due
until another 5,00,000 years!
> None of them impress me or are accepted by me. You are entirely free
> to believe what you want. I am not interested in and am not going to
> get invlved in matters and differences of high theology in what I
> regard as fairy tales.
>
> > You then failed to respond and instead questioned “…are they all
> > aspects of nimikins' multi faceted personality …”
>
> Mr Hazini has a "t'ing" about identities. Sauce ... goose ... gander!
> If he slings mud over the identities of those who oppose him then
> those who support him might just expect that a littlew mud is going to
> be slung at them. It's all to do with hypocrisy.
>
You have a strange logic. You rambled in your earlier sermon on
'respect, courtesy, etc.' and now you are saying you feel quite all
right in unjustified attack. As far as I can remember, my post in
response to you was directly related to what you said about Bayan and
Azali stuff.
From what I have seen Nima can mange on his own.
> > And hence my response to you that name and identity did not matter, a
> > point you concede.
> > In you latest ranting, I gathered you stopped being a Bahai. The rest
> > was just that.
>
> Describing my writing as "ranting" is grossly insulting. I decline to
Well, let's say your comments were grossly in error and insulting.
> treat it that way and instead deal with it on the basis that I suspect
> English is not your mother tongue.
>
> > I equally could not careless about anyone’s sexual interests.
>
> Except, one would hope, where paedophilia is concerned. The sexual
> abuse or exploitation of children is far and far the most base and
> heinous crime.
Yes it is.
>
>
>
> > “.. your co-religionist and is indeed a most fitting..
> > The smoke coming out of your skull points to a lot of hatred which is
> > probably due to years of hardship under Bahai regime. Nothing can fix
> > that. So I forgive you for being a lunatic.
>
> Once again I am going to assume you are not trying to be offensive. I
> don't do "hatred." I do not hate people because they espouse
> particular beliefs well knowing that in a world as vast as this there
> will be a multiplicity of beliefs. I will respect your viewpoint if
> you respect mine. there is noneed to try to in flict pain or
> suffering because people differe over religious beliefs or the lack
> thereof.
You will avoid using insults, will you?
>
> I am not a lunatic and lunacy is not a condition that demands or
> expects forgivenness.
>
> > “Indeed were I, or anybody else, to judge the Bayani Faith on ..”
> > Indeed, that would be a Bahai approach.
>
> Actually it would be anybody's approach - anybody drifting here out of
> curiosity will be repelled by the show of venom and hatred. Shoghi
> wrote that the Azalis were full of venom and blind hatred and you
> Bayanis go out of your way to prove he was right. You'll not prove
You have got it wrong. What Shoghi tried to do was what his grand
father and his great grand father tried to do and that was character
assassination by lies and slander.
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/alleg02/alleg-B-01.html
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/alleg02/alleg-B-02.html
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/alleg/alleg8-1.html
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/alleg/alleg8-2.html
..
> the Bahais wrong utilising your current tactics. Indeed the Bahais
> are well pleased to see you spit venom because that's what Shoghi said
> you would do. They also know that to the onlooker, if they don't
> respond to this, they will look crystal clear and lilly white good
> guys and you'll be the bad guys.
>
Read the links above. The only venom we have is the strength of the
testimonies from Bayan and the history. That is the venom Shoghi was
scared of.
> Now the chief Bayani spitter of venom is Mr Hazini. And he is doing
> exactly what the Bahais want him to do. He drives off Bahais who come
> here (the High Fans don't want Bahais to come here) and he makes the
> Bahais look good. Ever wonder why? Who is he working for? Clue -
> he's not working to advance the Bayani Faith because he ain't trying
> to attach friends or followers thereof.
Nima is entitled to his own views and so am I. Your venom and you
trying to captitalize in your anymosity towards him to discredit the
Bayani faith does not have much color.
>
> > “But then I suspect that's the purpose - if the people of the Bayan
> > spew filth at the Bahais..”
> > There is no filth spew at Bahais. We are trying to say this filth has
> > no connection with Bayani faith.
>
> You are not saying it very convincingly when you're supporting Mr
> Hazini.
In response to my arguments, you are falling back on your personal
vendetta and that does not sound convinving.
>
> > “and they do not respond in kind ..”
> > You probably joined Bahaism like the other 6000000 knowing nothing
> > about it.
>
> Well I knew a bit but when I found out more I hoofed it!
>
> > The Bahai literature is filled with filth against the faith their
> > founders attempted to base their pretentions. Read Shoghi’s GPB to see
> > them.
> > The reason Bahais don’t show up against Bayanis is because they run
> > into serious trouble when they are asked to explain how two
> > manifestation could occur in parallel.
>
> The Bahai stance is that the most recent revelation supplants and
Yes, that is what they claim. Although they also mix it with the
position that "Bab" was like John to Christ which I have covered
before and its is in contradiction with their other assertions.
> replaces the previous one. That is entirely logical. Since it all
Excuse me!
> ultimately depends on faith the only way you can convince anybody that
> Bayan is right and Baha is wrong is with a charm offensive that shows
> the people of the Bayan to be a lot nicer than the people of Baha
> because theirs is a better religion.
The proof and strength of Bayan is not based on my charm or anybody
else.
>
> Frankly most people are either frightened or so grossly insulted by Mr
> Hazini that they conclude there is nothing at all, whatsover,
> spiritually uplifting in the Bayan. He is after all its most recent
> divine revelation ... allegedly.
See my earlier remark.
>
> > “What a man says is more important than how he says it….”
> > Very good! Now, should I take what you have said for who you are? I
> > don’t think so!
>
> Who I am in not important and what I say should not be considered in
> light of who I am but on its own merits.
Right! There you go again. You just spent the whole page saying that
if I am not saying nice things then people do not get attracted to the
religion.
That makes you a hypocrite?
>
> > “Tim Finnegan is not my real name..”
> > I still don’t care.
> > “Now I am detatched from it all - Bayanis, reform Bahai etc ..”
> > I am not surprised.
>
> > “a ….. narrow-minded, petty, arrogant, opinionated pedants …”
> > Wow! You obviously don’t have any opinion.
>
> i think I'm entitled!
>
> > “Nobody can prove (or disprove) the existence of God”
> > I don’t think we aimed that high. My aim was to make the point that
> > Bahaism could not stand on the premise it said it stood.
>
> It all rests or falls with God ... leave him out of the argument and
In Bayan, the only way to get close to God is by recognizing its true
manifestation on earth.
> therere is nothing. If God has sent Baha as the most recent
And, that is a huge IF
> revelation than the Bayani Faith is doomed. The big question is ...
> how do we know ... how can we choose? I think the traditional answer
Well, what we say is study the material from all side, listen to both
side, think and decide, which is what Bahais preach but don't
practice.
> is that if the followers of a claimant to being the possessor of God's
> revelation show themselves to be transformed by adherence to his creed
> then that creed has a fair claim to being right. Bahais recruit on
Nop!
Firstly, the whole family of Husayn-Ali who were brought up in front
of him ended up being excommunicated by one or the other.
A good advertising campaign does not make the product a good one.
The requirement of a true religion is not just the good conduct of its
people.
There is plenty of proof that Bahais have not practiced good citizen.
In any case, the requirement is ONLY met by the truth.
> their presenting to potential adherents as awfully nice people ...
A lot of them are. They just don't know what they have got themselves
into.
> you'l have to be even more awfully nice if you want to trump them
>
Nicety has its own merits but is not the proof we would want people to
accept us for. That would be the Bahai approach. A lot of smiles,
parties, gatherings, etc. but 0000.000 substance.
> > “ And that demands honesty, integrity, courtesy, a willingness to
> > listen, respect, a regard for the sensibilities of others ... seasoned
> > with a little humour, lest it become boring.”
> > Boy! You are a preacher!
>
> i thought that was pretty basic stuff.
What I meant was that you are a preacher who don't not practice what
you say.
There were a few other samples here again.
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:15 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > My age would be a good start! The Gravenhurst pedophile is aged 57.
> > I am not.
>
> Prove. Assertion is not proof.
>
Nima, darling. You ASSERT that I am this 57 year old guy whose middle
name is not Andrew.
You ALSO assert that I am not really Paul Hammond at all, but someone
else pretending that that is my name.
I'm fully in agreement with you that assertion is not proof. Indeed,
I've been saying that to you for a long time now - but you've never
come up with anything other than assertion to your various and varying
conspiracy theories about myself and others.
Now, I have the advantage over you here, in that I AM me, and ergo, I
know who you are.
But as to my identity, it's not ME that has anything to prove in this
case.
Paul
>
> > You're the guy making the unsubstantiated assertions here.
>
> On the contrary.
>
No, absolutely. It IS you who is making the unsubstantiated assertions
here.
And as you so correctly stated above, assertion is NOT proof.
NUR
> NUR wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 3:15 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > My age would be a good start! The Gravenhurst pedophile is aged 57.
> > > I am not.
>
> > Prove. Assertion is not proof.
>
> Nima, darling. You ASSERT that I am this 57 year old guy whose middle
> name is not Andrew.
Do you mind showing where we have prima facie evidence that this guy's
name is not Andrew?
> You ALSO assert that I am not really Paul Hammond at all, but someone
> else pretending that that is my name.
I assert that there are possibly multiple identities having used the
Paul Hammond handle on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency, and it is
very feasible (nay, indubitable) unless proven factually and
incontrovertibly otherwise, that the Gravenhurst pedophile is one of
those identities.
> Now, I have the advantage over you here, in that I AM me, and ergo, I
> know who you are.
Prove it.
> But as to my identity, it's not ME that has anything to prove in this
> case.
In fact you do. You have proven nothing as to your identity or
established who you really are. Just have merely made a string of
baseless assertions unsupported by even a single leaf of
documentation.
Finnegan's Wake
>
> Do you mind showing where we have prima facie evidence that this guy's
> name is not Andrew?
Do you have evidence that this man's middle name is Andrew?
Would we be naive enough as to expect you to produce it?
> I assert that there are possibly multiple identities having used the
> Paul Hammond handle on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency, and it is
> very feasible (nay, indubitable) unless proven factually and
> incontrovertibly otherwise, that the Gravenhurst pedophile is one of
> those identities.
Assertion is not evidence and if assertion is the basis on which you
hang every thing else then you are talking a massive load of bullcrap.
> > Now, I have the advantage over you here, in that I AM me, and ergo, I
> > know who you are.
>
> Prove it.
>
> > But as to my identity, it's not ME that has anything to prove in this
> > case.
>
> In fact you do. You have proven nothing as to your identity or
> established who you really are. Just have merely made a string of
> baseless assertions unsupported by even a single leaf of
> documentation.
You made the assertion- you have to prove it.
For example you have asserted that you changed your name by legal
means to Wahid Azal.
You have checked a number of people for not addressing you by this
name.
You have merely asserted that you have changed your name - you have
not proved it.
Is this a criminal fraud?
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:39 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > NUR wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 3:15 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > My age would be a good start! The Gravenhurst pedophile is aged 57.
> > > > I am not.
> >
> > > Prove. Assertion is not proof.
> >
> > Nima, darling. You ASSERT that I am this 57 year old guy whose middle
> > name is not Andrew.
>
> Do you mind showing where we have prima facie evidence that this guy's
> name is not Andrew?
>
Where you refused to answer the question 2) What is the middle name of
Paul Hammond(57) from Gravenhurst.
As I've already said in previous posts, the obvious conclusion to draw
from your repeated refusal to answer that question directly is
1) you don't know his middle name
2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
Clearly, if you COULD show that the guy's middle name was Andrew,
you'd already have confirmed that.
What I've said below also makes my reasoning more likely:
>
> > You ALSO assert that I am not really Paul Hammond at all, but someone
> > else pretending that that is my name.
>
Since you've DEFINITELY said that you think I'm not Paul at all, we
can clearly see that you don't care about checking your facts before
accusing another poster of having been convicted of offences involving
kiddie porn.
Which, of course, confirms your love of a smear, regardless of facts.
If you've got ANY proof of ANYTHING you've said about me over the last
decade, surely it's way past time you produced it by now?
NUR
> 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:40 pm, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do you mind showing where we have prima facie evidence that this guy's
> > name is not Andrew?
>
> Do you have evidence that this man's middle name is Andrew?
>
> Would we be naive enough as to expect you to produce it?
>
> > I assert that there are possibly multiple identities having used the
> > Paul Hammond handle on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency, and it is
> > very feasible (nay, indubitable) unless proven factually and
> > incontrovertibly otherwise, that the Gravenhurst pedophile is one of
> > those identities.
>
> Assertion is not evidence and if assertion is the basis on which you
> hang every thing else then you are talking a massive load of bullcrap.
>
> > > Now, I have the advantage over you here, in that I AM me, and ergo, I
> > > know who you are.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > > But as to my identity, it's not ME that has anything to prove in this
> > > case.
>
> > In fact you do. You have proven nothing as to your identity or
> > established who you really are. Just have merely made a string of
> > baseless assertions unsupported by even a single leaf of
> > documentation.
>
> You made the assertion- you have to prove it.
Here you go, again. Can you disprove it? No, you can't.
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174894130.html
-
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-175132217.html
from Luton Crown Court
-
This is documented evidence. If you have documented evidence
disproving that this Paul Hammond and that Paul Hammond are two
different persons, let's see the documentary evidence. You merely
assert without offering any evidence in return, and until you do, this
documented evidence trumps your assertive waves of the hand! QED
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
>
That's convenient for you, that you suddenly decide that. Isn't it?
Or maybe you're lying? Could it be?
btw - while we're confirming names - can you tell me May's name?
Paul
NUR
> NUR wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> > Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> > then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
>
> That's convenient for you, that you suddenly decide that. Isn't it?
Prove otherwise. You haven't provided a single leaf of documentation
disabusing it. You simply rant and assert without proof. G'head
provide any documentation proving that you are a different Paul
Hammond.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Feb 16, 11:25 am, "Finnegan's Wake"<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 8:50 am, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You made a few fatal mistakes for which you were served:
> > > You were disrespectful to the Bayani faith, and referred to it as
> > > Azalism.
>
> > I would have thought they were interchangeable but if you're sensitive
> > about it then we shall use Bayani. I think however you should make it
> > clear that it is synonomous with Azali, otherwise your references to
> > the way the Bahai Faith treats you will simply hang in mid air.
>
> They are not. There is no such thing as Azali. Azal did not have a
> claim to a new cause. He continued the path of the Point of Bayan.
To an interested but uninformed outsider the two are or ought to be
synonomous ... otherwise he won't have a clue what you're talking
about.
> > > I reminded you as to who first coined it and that the entire Bahai
> > > pretention was based on the Bayani faith.
>
> > Allegedly. Fact is that Baha claimed a fresh revelation and in the
> > world of religion a fresh revelation trumps an earlier one. Hence
> > Moses is supplanted by Jesus who is supplanted by Muhammed; he in turn
> > by the Bab; then he is supplanted by Baha etc.
>
> True. Bahaism needs to prove that it is what Bayan promised. The
> latter manifestation is the fulfillemnt of the earlier not the one
> before it.
No - it doesn't, especially if it fudges its early history.
>
> > That's the theoetical base in which the BF rests its case as the
> > latest religion. Of course many don't accept this - Christians accept
> > none of the contenders after Jesus; Muslims accept none of the
> > contenders after Muhammed; Bayanis refuse to accept Baha and the
>
> Yep.
>
> > Bahais just reject the latest of these revelations - that of Nima
> > Hazini.
>
> Did Nima say he was the promised one of Husayn-Ali. He is not due
> until another 5,00,000 years!
Look at this from the POV of an uninformed outsider arriving at this
place and looking about. He is not into the niceties of Bayani/Bahai
history or the theology of the Promised One - he is curious wanting to
get a quick idea as to what it's all about. He observes the vile
utterances that spew from the mouth of one who claims to be a divine
revelation and is esconced within the Bayani Faith. Trust me on
this ... that guy is outa here so fast his shirt tail won't touch his
ass on the way. But even if he hangs around a bit and asks the wrong
question or says anything out of place his personal life will be
researched, blazoned across every message and he will then be told to
"fuck off." So much for teaching the Bayani Faith ... I'll bet there
are cobwebs on your keyboard whilst you await somebody to arrive here
and get into a decent conversation about the Bayan.
More than likely any guy seeing your lot will immediately hunt out the
Bahais ... for there's no way they could be any nastier.
> You have a strange logic. You rambled in your earlier sermon on
> 'respect, courtesy, etc.' and now you are saying you feel quite all
> right in unjustified attack.
I believe in respect and courtesy etc as I noted - I do not indulge in
unjustified attacks. I will defend myself and I will defend others and
I will smack down unruly conduct. Respect and courtesy have to be
reciprocal - there are rules of conduct that should not be
transgressed. In my book it is fine for somebody to attack/criticise
my ideas or even crack a joke about or the odd insult at me. But it is
not acceptable to refer to my (or any) child as a "spastick brat",
about whom the writer seems to entertain sexual fantasies; it is not
acceptable to brand a poster here as a paedophile or "kiddie fiddler"
without a shred of credible evidence and it is not acceptable to tell
new arrivals to "fuck off". People who do that are not deserving of
either respect or courtesy and an attack on just a person cannot be
said to be unjustified.
As far as I can remember, my post in
> response to you was directly related to what you said about Bayan and
> Azali stuff.
> From what I have seen Nima can mange on his own.
He should have to unless of course you agree with what he says. And
if you don't openly dissociate yourself from his vileness, then, of
course, the reader is entitled to conclude that you agree with or
concur in it. He is a Bayani - whether you like it or not, the casual
reader will associate his behaviour with the Bayani Faith and conclude
that it tolerates such unscrupulous behaviour if it does not actively
encourage it.
I would invite you to consider the opprobrium rightly heaped upon the
Catholic Church in Ireland (and elsewhere) for covering up
institutional sexual abuse of children in its care. Folks expect
integrity from a religion - that it discipline those of its members
who bring it into disrepute; above all that it does not tolerate or
cover up their behaviour where that behaviour falls far short of what
is acceptable, by the moral or criminal law. Whatever grievances the
Bayanis have with the Bahais will not be resolved through the Hazini
method. Furthermore he is not a threat to the continued existence of
the Bahai Faith - he has done nothing of any consequence to counter
its activities.
His actions on TRB run counter to the interests of the Bayani Faith
which, I assume, are essentially to put across its view that it has
been wrongly grossly maligned by the Bahai Faith. As Mr Hazini chases
away any who venture here you don't get much chance to put that
message across.
The Bahai Faith never wanted this Usenet newsgroup opened. It fought
a campaign to stop its formation and lost. This is the one uncensored
and non-moderated area of the Internet - the only place where the
various Bahai factions, the Bayanis and others could hope to meet.
And who has shut it down? Why none other than the self proclaimed
Bayani affiliated divine revelation for this age but Nima "Call me
Wahid" Hazini! And whose interests does he serve in doing this? Why
none other than his High Fan handlers and masters!
Cui Bono?
Finnegan's Wake
> On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
His middle name is Richard.
NUR
Evidence?
Finnegan's Wake
You got any to show it isn't?
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:23 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 10:48 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> > <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 2:48 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> > > > Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> > > > then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
>
> > > His middle name is Richard.
>
> > Evidence?
>
> You got any to show it isn't?
Yup. Can you disprove with documentary evidence that it isn't? Didn't
think so...
Steve Blomberg
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:09 am, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:25 am, "Finnegan's Wake"<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 8:50 am, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You made a few fatal mistakes for which you were served:
> > > > You were disrespectful to the Bayani faith, and referred to it as
> > > > Azalism.
>
> > > I would have thought they were interchangeable but if you're sensitive
> > > about it then we shall use Bayani. I think however you should make it
> > > clear that it is synonomous with Azali, otherwise your references to
> > > the way the Bahai Faith treats you will simply hang in mid air.
>
> > They are not. There is no such thing as Azali. Azal did not have a
> > claim to a new cause. He continued the path of the Point of Bayan.
>
> To an interested but uninformed outsider the two are or ought to be
> synonomous ... otherwise he won't have a clue what you're talking
> about.
My aim is both. It is important for an uninformed outsider to be
informed. I don't think people like to remain ignorant.
Your assumption that unless I refer to 'Azali' they will not have a
clue assumes that the uninformed outsider is likely to know the Azali
but not Bayani. How do you make these assumptions? Are you thinking of
Bahais?
>
> > > > I reminded you as to who first coined it and that the entire Bahai
> > > > pretention was based on the Bayani faith.
>
> > > Allegedly. Fact is that Baha claimed a fresh revelation and in the
> > > world of religion a fresh revelation trumps an earlier one. Hence
> > > Moses is supplanted by Jesus who is supplanted by Muhammed; he in turn
> > > by the Bab; then he is supplanted by Baha etc.
>
> > True. Bahaism needs to prove that it is what Bayan promised. The
> > latter manifestation is the fulfillemnt of the earlier not the one
> > before it.
>
> No - it doesn't, especially if it fudges its early history.
Can you explain who is the subject of your assertion and where does it
come from?
>
>
>
> > > That's the theoetical base in which the BF rests its case as the
> > > latest religion. Of course many don't accept this - Christians accept
> > > none of the contenders after Jesus; Muslims accept none of the
> > > contenders after Muhammed; Bayanis refuse to accept Baha and the
>
> > Yep.
>
> > > Bahais just reject the latest of these revelations - that of Nima
> > > Hazini.
>
> > Did Nima say he was the promised one of Husayn-Ali. He is not due
> > until another 5,00,000 years!
>
> Look at this from the POV of an uninformed outsider arriving at this
> place and looking about. He is not into the niceties of Bayani/Bahai
> history or the theology of the Promised One - he is curious wanting to
> get a quick idea as to what it's all about. He observes the vile
> utterances that spew from the mouth of one who claims to be a divine
> revelation and is esconced within the Bayani Faith. Trust me on
> this ... that guy is outa here so fast his shirt tail won't touch his
> ass on the way. But even if he hangs around a bit and asks the wrong
> question or says anything out of place his personal life will be
> researched, blazoned across every message and he will then be told to
> "fuck off." So much for teaching the Bayani Faith ... I'll bet there
> are cobwebs on your keyboard whilst you await somebody to arrive here
> and get into a decent conversation about the Bayan.
You are being off the topic. There is much more of that vulgar uttered
by past and present Bahais here that could be possible uttered by me
who happens to spend limited time in a year targetting Bahai nonsense
such as the one posted by a Bahai on the prophecies fulfilled by
Husayn-Ali.
Read my past posts and you will see that I focus on Bahai bullshit.
As for Nima (as you claim to be the only other Bayani), my observation
is that he doesn't come short returning the favor by people like PH.
As for outsider, I think that given the flavor topics I would be
surprised if anyone looks at the convoluted trb to learn anything.
>
> More than likely any guy seeing your lot will immediately hunt out the
> Bahais ... for there's no way they could be any nastier.
You are being sinister of course.
>
> > You have a strange logic. You rambled in your earlier sermon on
> > 'respect, courtesy, etc.' and now you are saying you feel quite all
> > right in unjustified attack.
>
> I believe in respect and courtesy etc as I noted - I do not indulge in
> unjustified attacks. I will defend myself and I will defend others and
> I will smack down unruly conduct. Respect and courtesy have to be
> reciprocal - there are rules of conduct that should not be
> transgressed. In my book it is fine for somebody to attack/criticise
> my ideas or even crack a joke about or the odd insult at me. But it is
> not acceptable to refer to my (or any) child as a "spastick brat",
> about whom the writer seems to entertain sexual fantasies; it is not
> acceptable to brand a poster here as a paedophile or "kiddie fiddler"
> without a shred of credible evidence and it is not acceptable to tell
> new arrivals to "fuck off". People who do that are not deserving of
> either respect or courtesy and an attack on just a person cannot be
> said to be unjustified.
I don't think you really addressed what I said about you.
At least in this thread you don't practice what you preach.
>
> As far as I can remember, my post in
>
> > response to you was directly related to what you said about Bayan and
> > Azali stuff.
> > From what I have seen Nima can mange on his own.
>
> He should have to unless of course you agree with what he says. And
> if you don't openly dissociate yourself from his vileness, then, of
> course, the reader is entitled to conclude that you agree with or
> concur in it. He is a Bayani - whether you like it or not, the casual
> reader will associate his behaviour with the Bayani Faith and conclude
> that it tolerates such unscrupulous behaviour if it does not actively
> encourage it.
Ah! You are now using the correct term.
How can I support or otherwise something I have no clue of!
What I do know is that Paul is here to defend Bahais at any cost.
I am fully informed about this one and can answer any question you
have.
>
> I would invite you to consider the opprobrium rightly heaped upon the
> Catholic Church in Ireland (and elsewhere) for covering up
> institutional sexual abuse of children in its care. Folks expect
> integrity from a religion - that it discipline those of its members
> who bring it into disrepute; above all that it does not tolerate or
> cover up their behaviour where that behaviour falls far short of what
> is acceptable, by the moral or criminal law. Whatever grievances the
> Bayanis have with the Bahais will not be resolved through the Hazini
> method. Furthermore he is not a threat to the continued existence of
> the Bahai Faith - he has done nothing of any consequence to counter
> its activities.
Nima is not the flag bearer of the religion of Bayan.He is an
individual who happens to believe that Husayn-Ali's claim makes a cow
to laugh it off. I have also seen Bahais and Bahai fans to abuse with
things that are far nastier.
>
> His actions on TRB run counter to the interests of the Bayani Faith
> which, I assume, are essentially to put across its view that it has
> been wrongly grossly maligned by the Bahai Faith. As Mr Hazini chases
> away any who venture here you don't get much chance to put that
> message across.
In those threads, there is nothing but abuse and counter abuse, they
have no significance to prove anyone's POV.
Nima is extremely knowledgeable. I have not come across may who has
his grasp of difficult theological matters.
I don't get involves with the threads that do nothing other then abuse
the hell of one another.
>
> The Bahai Faith never wanted this Usenet newsgroup opened. It fought
> a campaign to stop its formation and lost. This is the one uncensored
I understand they would prefer to hear themselves like in SRB.
> and non-moderated area of the Internet - the only place where the
> various Bahai factions, the Bayanis and others could hope to meet.
There are many more people can talk about these things.
> And who has shut it down? Why none other than the self proclaimed
> Bayani affiliated divine revelation for this age but Nima "Call me
If you mean the forum is bugged down to abuse and counter abuse then I
agree. I have also seen what the other side is capable of.
> Wahid" Hazini! And whose interests does he serve in doing this? Why
> none other than his High Fan handlers and masters!
>
> Cui Bono?
Ask Nima. My observation is that in most of those threads, it is
either Bahais/Bahai fans abusing Nima or Nima returning the favor.
I have seen plenty of examples on both sides.
I myself a couple of years a go met few Bahais on this forum whose
vocabulary was restricted to the f word and anything that was
associated with it.
You should not try to give me the impression that Bahais are all bunch
of civilized men, far from it.
Glaub mir!
NUR
Note how ridiculous and transparent the overall arguments of these
people actually are, esp. where it concerns me. Instead of responding
to actual points, they shift the argument to the person uttering it,
as if the contour or veracity of the argument actually shifts in its
right and wrongness depending on who says it. This a classic cult-
technique of fallacious ad hom that seeks to deflect from the point at
hand, discredit the opponent without addressing the point, which you
will find amongst the Scientologists (not to mention Hezbollahis in
Iran) plenty as well, and which is the entire history of Bahai
discourse about the Bayan in a nutshell. It is also like the total
nonsense that we hear day in, day out come out of the Islamic republic
about human rights where rather than addressing issues at hand those
idiots shift blame over to others without acknowledging that just
because the West are utter hypocrites about human rights (and
insincerely use it as a crutch against non-Western countries to gain
unfair leverage) does not automatically absolve the Islamic republic
of its own string of mindboggling abuses either (eg. note the utter BS
coming out of the IR foreign ministry at the moment, like Manouchehr
Mottaki's response speech to Hilary Clinton yesterday).
These BIA clowns have the exact same mentality and fallacious
argumentation points as the Hezbollah-Sepahi criminals illegitmately
ruling Iran at the moment. In fact, this Dermod reminds me a lot of
Ahmadinejad and Mottaki except Ahmadinejad is a lot funnier and
Mottaki a lot sauver.
With utter gall (poroo'ee), and absolutely no evidence other than
bluster, he suggests that I might be an agent of the AO-hole system.
The reason he does this is because Dead Weed and his immediate sell-
out constituency (McGlinn, Bacquet, etc) are a gutless cabal of self-
styled liberal Bahais who want to ultimately reconcile with the system
and kiss the Supreme Leaders ring. My position, as you know, is that
the Haifan Bahai system as a whole must be destroyed completely brick
by rotten brick, undermined at every turn and in every way, and so
exposed far and wide by any and all means necessary! How this actually
makes me an agent of the AO-hole system, is anyone's guess, esp. since
previously these same people were accusing me with the same gall of
being an agent of the IRI. Now that the winds have shifted, they dare
not utter a single word in that direction, lest they be made to look
like total fools.
But the record here (and elsewhere) shows that Dermod and his behavior
has directly benefitted this very AO-hole system. Every time a serious
critic such as myself has come here, it has been Dermod who has
shouted them down and made common cause with the BIA peanut gallery
and run them out of here into silence. Who benefits there? Obviously
the system. So who is Dermod Ryder (Finnegan) working for? Obviously
the AO-hole system.
But note that in recent events the regime in Iran itself has several
times attempted this exact same divide-and-conquer tactic with many
opposition student leaders of the Green movement, whether in the
prisons or otherwise. The intelligence agencies of the Sepahi junta
plant rumors that so and so is actually working on the inside against
the Green movement feeding intelligence to the system. In some cases
this tactic of reverse psychological warfare has worked, esp. at Evin,
and in others it has backfired on the regime. But that these BIA
agents, such as Dermod Ryder, are using such transparent tactics
themselves proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are dealing
with the exact same fascist mentality and system that is ruling Iran
at the moment, and that is why no mercy whatsoever should be shown to
this specific clown.
Now as to who benefits from my anti-Haifan Bahai activism: future
generations, for one, the unsuspecting who might otherwise be misled
by the crafty propaganda of this cult, and, finally, the fence sitters
who might need that extra nudge to abandon the Haifan sinking ship
completely. And on that score, alhamdulillah, I have succeeded! Show
me one instance in the past eight years where Dermod Ryder has taken
on the system as savagely as I have, or even mildly confronted it from
a position of personal conscience. You can't because he hasn't because
he has been bought by the system (and the British government who
supports its client) to do their bidding on these boards against its
*real* detractors. Agents of totalitarian systems are all typecasts of
Dermod Ryder and this Paul "kiddie fiddler" HamHead.
DEATH TO FASCISM everywhere!
W
Steve Blomberg
> Steve jan,
>
> Note how ridiculous and transparent the overall arguments of these
> people actually are,
Extremely.
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:23 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > NUR wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
> >
> > > Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> > > then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
> >
> > That's convenient for you, that you suddenly decide that. Isn't it?
>
> Prove otherwise. You haven't provided a single leaf of documentation
> disabusing it. You simply rant and assert without proof. G'head
> provide any documentation proving that you are a different Paul
> Hammond.
I started off simply asking a question
2) What is this guy's middle name
I submit that your failure to answer, repeatedly, proves beyond
reasonable doubt that his middle name certainly aint Andrew and you
know that for a fact, or you don't know what his middle name is and
haven't looked beyond the chance for a juicy smear.
Isn't the onus rather on you to provide a single leaf of documentation
that I AM in fact the convicted Paul Hammond you keep reposting to
assert that I am?
G'head provide any documentation proving that I am that same Paul
Hammond.
Paul Hammond (38, from Peterborough)
and whilst you're at it, tell me May's real name.
PaulHammond
> On Feb 18, 11:45 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
>
>
>
>
> <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 9:09 am, Steve Blomberg <bayani.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As far as I can remember, my post in
>
> > > response to you was directly related to what you said about Bayan and
> > > Azali stuff.
> > > From what I have seen Nima can mange on his own.
>
> > He should have to unless of course you agree with what he says. And
> > if you don't openly dissociate yourself from his vileness, then, of
> > course, the reader is entitled to conclude that you agree with or
> > concur in it. He is a Bayani - whether you like it or not, the casual
> > reader will associate his behaviour with the Bayani Faith and conclude
> > that it tolerates such unscrupulous behaviour if it does not actively
> > encourage it.
>
> Ah! You are now using the correct term.
> How can I support or otherwise something I have no clue of!
> What I do know is that Paul is here to defend Bahais at any cost.
> I am fully informed about this one and can answer any question you
> have.
>
>
Steve, you absolutely do NOT know that about me!
The trouble is that Nima has told you that I "defend Baha'is at all
costs" so many times that you believe the bastard.
Even though, I'm a great supporter of, for instance, gay rights -
which in most understandings of the Baha'i Laws would not be well
supported.
And, erm, I'm an atheist.
btw - I don't think Dermod ever had a problem with using "Bayani"
instead of "Azali" - the problem he had is with the assumption of bad
faith you made in asking him to use your preferred term.
I too object to being sworn at for using a term in good faith - and
you DO have a tendency to try to dictate that everyone agrees to use
always and only the terms YOU prefer before you even engage them in
debate.
Paul
Finnegan's Wake
You have excelled yourself - 773 words of total absolute drivel with
not one fact or verifiable regerence that relates to the subject to
hand - viz your position as an agent provocateur working for the aims
of the BF.
If you're not one, as you claim, then you suffer from a profound
learning disability - that might be a defence. Outside your little
coterie of devotees there's not one person who rates you as other than
a buffoon and poltroon. Perhaps that's why it was so easy for the
High Fans to recruite you ... did I forget to mention that it was a
"false flag recruitment?" You seriously think you're working for
somebody else.
Typical of the way you mishandle things is the Taheri correspondence.
To a dispassionate observer this indicates that Bahai has certain
rules and will not hesitate to enforce them. They are silly rules -
they indicate this is a self-centred almost fascist organisation.
They also indicate that people can get kicked out and can leave. The
person of liberal sensibilities concludes this is not a very nice
organisation with which to be associated. He notes however that the
correspondence does NOT involve a brreach of human rights and that
critics, such as you, who state that it does are obviously seized more
of hatred and prone to hyperbole. Exaggeration and the citing of non-
sustainable criticism merely demeans the critic and strengthens the
criticised. It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
which you proved it is.
You have, of course, flogged this to death, over the years, to the
cringing embarrassment of the family and to the greater glory of the
AO. If that's the best you can come up with, then the AO is right to
dismiss you as the pathetic and isolated moron that you present to be.
At best you can be described as a travelling salesman who hawks the
wares of others across a few sites on the Internet viz those few that
haven't banned you for being totally obnoxious. Of the list of
"triumphs" against the AO, that you interminably thunder, none, that
may properly be described as triumphs, are of your making. By any
objective standard most of them are pretty mundane and do not
represent a terminal threat to the continued existence of the AO.
The OBF Court Case is currently a major setback to the AO. Hopefully
it will remain that way if the verdict of the Appeal Court goes the
way that the OBF (and I) hope it does. Like me, you have no
involvement in it - it is none of your doing and therefore not one of
your triumphs by way of which you may be gauged as a major critic of
the AO. To achieve that staus you need to be creative; to do
something on your own or with others that secures a public approval as
a blow against the interests of the AO. You have singularly failed to
do that.
Your declaration of Manifestation-hood was pathetic. You touted round
all the major liberals/dissenters inviting them to become your Letters
of the Living. You told me it was to be a practical joke, obviously
to get me interested, but failed because I well knew you hadn't (and
still haven't) got what it takes to carry off a practical joke;
something incidentally that on denouement, leaves its victims laughing
at their own gullibility, not humiliated and degraded. You eventually
got Starr to back you and then you went your separate ways - why, we
don't know - with Starr subject to the hail of abuse that is your
trademark denunciation of any who fail to toe your line, do what you
want to do and worship you as the greatest thing since disposable
diapers. This incident actually well illustrates how totally clueless
you are and how immune you are to advice from older and wiser heads.
No liberal/dissident Bahai was going to be associated in any way with
a schismatic movement of any kind - far less one headed by a plonker
like you. You should have known that from the Majnun letter - you got
your balls chewed off for suggesting something that was directly
contrary to the rules and would have given the AO the unfettered right
to kick the whole lot out for heresy. Does Nima think ... does Nima
learn ...? DUH! Did your handler suggest this as a way of getting the
liberals/dissenters to throw themselves outside the pale (and be
legitimately condemned as CBs) thus getting rid of the pesky lot in
one fell swoop or did you come up with it yourself?
As a practical joke I was well attracted to it - after all the implied
threat of the boot did not apply to me for I had left the organisation
years prior to coming online. You talked of a preparation and
planning period but you actually didn't have one, for you launched it,
half-cocked, without having informed me (who was your best hope of
support) in advance. What transpired was that after the launch you and
Starr rang me one Saturday night to try to persuade me to become a
LOL ... you and she both were LOL at the jokes I was telling
(deflection on my part to avoid the necessity, at that time of telling
you you were a plonker - trying to spare your sensibilities) and I
assiduously avoided getting involved in the whole debacle. Now where
did I get that sense of humour that you claim I never have had?
Everybody else around here knows I have one and am highly prone to
deploying it - this has all been explained to you in the past. How do
you expect anybody to believe a word you say when you deny that which
is apparent to the entire world - which entity excludes you from
membership? What is the point of your being here when you do little
other than talk shite?
Let us recall another one of your phone calls ... taken by my wife
(herself a BIGS). You told her the "word was on the street" that
everybody within the Liberal?Dissident camp was about to be declared a
Covenant Breaker and asked her if this happened what her reaction
would be ... after all, a BIGS cannot, in good faith, remain married
to a CB. When I later spoke to you I got the distinct impression that
the dung was dropping in your drawers at the mere rumour of this. She
and I both assured you that if it were to transpire than the AO would
get a suitable response from both of us .. that it would not like at
all ... as I recall it the message was to the effect of "A four letter
word that rhymes with duck" followed by "off". Now, so far as I know,
nobody else heard of this rumour. Did your handlers ask you to find
out if I would be intimidated by this threat and, perhapss more
importantly - did my wife's loyalties lie with me and she whom you
have referred to as a "spastick brat" or did it lie with the AO? You
and it got the answer it did not want to receive. OTOH if it was a
genuine rumour and you had not at that juncture crossed to the dark
side you, at least, got an injection of moral fibre that was badly
needed. En passant I will note that the vast majority of the Bahais
(of all sides) lack guts - there are notable and honourable
exceptions, among whom you are not enumerated.
Let us also refer to another phone call wherein you solemnly informed
me that you had evidence (sound familiar) that a very prominent Bahai
liberal was on the point of defecting to the Orthodox Bahai Faith and
that he had done a deal with Joel Marangella whereby in return for or
subsequent to that defection, he would be publicly named as Joel's
successor to the Guardianship. You asked me to post this to TRB. I
asked for sight of the evidence ... even then. None was forthcoming.
I wrote to Joel stating what you had told me though not naming you as
the source, merely referring to you as a "source that is normally
reliable." I got a very nice and courteous reply scotching the whole
rumour. Needless to say I did not make the posting you had requested
and marked you down as basically unreliable - information from you,
unless corroborated and verified would not be used by me. Why were
you surprised I did not swallow your cant about Paul ... and you did
try to be so persuasive on the phone? The letter to you re Paul was
hatched and despatched with the knowledge and approval of other
liberal/dissidents. By that stage your credibility as a source of
reliable information was suspect in the eyes of many. Had you
supplied the evidence you said you had and had it withstood scrutiny
then the situation would have developed differently. But you had no
evidence and you have even less now.
Let us not forget Zuhur - the, safe from the prying eyes of the AO,
list for liberals/dissident that you founded and whose membership you
vetted and vouched for. It leaked like a colander as I found out when
Susie Maneck took utmost delight in exposing me as one of the evil
geniuses behind Brave New World. And where had she gleaned this juicy
bit of gossip? Why from none other than Zuhur .. the safe list whose
membership was vetted and vouched for by Nima Hazini Esq. You were
either a total plonker OR you worked for the AO supplying it with all
the details of conversations exchanged between liberal/dissidents.
Oh and you'd purely love us to sue you ... is that because the AO
won't? Fact is that the AO doesn't waste time suing or even
considering suing nonentities like you. That's why you're frantically
running around asking anybody around here to run you into Court. OTOH
as Susie delighted in telling me the AO had definitely wanted to sue
and took legal advice on the possibility of suing the evil geniuses
behind Brave New World on the grounds that its satirical content was
so close to the real thing that it might have confused the BIGS -
Jeffrey might just be familiar with that whole concept. So Babe, as a
critic of the AO that puts me way ahead of you ... you don't even
deserve to stand in my shadow and even less deserving to stand in that
of Jeffrey and his co-religionists who have actually been sued.
<773 words of drivel snipped>
Steve Blomberg
I drew.
I didn't say you were Bahai. I said you were a staunch supporter of
baha'is who is not prepared to accept an anti Bahai position coming
from a bayani.
You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say. We have seem
example of this behaviour consistently.
PaulHammond
No, you didn't say that. You said "What I do know is that Paul is
here to defend Bahais at any cost."
THAT is an absolute lie, which originates with Nima - and does not at
all describe my reasons for coming here.
Please do have the integrity not to withdraw what you said and pretend
you said something different.
> You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
> disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say.
That is not a fact. I'm sorry if it's your perception.
I have no animus against Bayanis, just against Nima for running a
smear campaign against me here for a very long time.
However, as someone with mathematical training, I'm not about to let
you get away with illogical arguments, or arguments based on shaky or
doubtful premises.
Hence, my objection to you basing an argument on the premise
"because the Baha'is on this site have not mentioned the Bab, they do
not see him as an important figure, and admit that Baha'u'llah is not
the Bab's successor"
I have suggested other, more reasonable arguments as to why some
Baha'is drawing up a website for general assumption might omit the
name of the Bab.
But rather than engage with what I have said, you have preferred to
decide that I am prejudiced.
That's your choice - but I will not allow you to parrot Nima's lies
about me and let them pass for truth.
NUR
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/2e6bf24392cd6971
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
1. Baha'i Faith
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%27i_Faith
2. Baha'i Internet Agency
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency
3. An Episcopalian view of Baha'ism
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/interfaith/lessons_for_christians_in_the.php
&
Baha’i The New World Religion of The NWO
http://merahza.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/bahai-the-new-world-religion-of-the-nwo/#comments
&
Carroll Quigley THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT
http://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment
&
6. LAWSUIT
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html
Quote
QUOTE
See as well,
-
QUOTE
Quote
--
-
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/DMartin.htm
Quote
&
&
-
QUOTE
Chapter 11
Quote
-
Quote
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home
Then see,
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
Reference:
PALESTINE
Quote
&
http://gothicimage.co.uk/leymap.html
-
-
Quote
-
-
&
-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/470629758d76627a#
-
&
-
29: ALLBELIEFS site controlled by the BAHAI INTERNET AGENCY: BEWARE!
http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2009/12/allbeliefs-site-controlled-by-bahai.html
-
30: Bayanic.Com
NUR
NUR
> NUR wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 3:23 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > > NUR wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> > > > Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> > > > then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
>
> > > That's convenient for you, that you suddenly decide that. Isn't it?
>
> > Prove otherwise. You haven't provided a single leaf of documentation
> > disabusing it. You simply rant and assert without proof. G'head
> > provide any documentation proving that you are a different Paul
> > Hammond.
>
> I started off simply asking a question
>
> 2) What is this guy's middle name
Andrew. Can you prove different?
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:00 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have excelled yourself - 773 words of total absolute drivel with
> not one fact or verifiable regerence that relates to the subject to
> hand - viz your position as an agent provocateur working for the aims
> of the BF.
Because the drivel is all in your own head given that you are
incapable of addressing a single item of argument in that missive that
demonstrates clearly, transparently and to a moral certainty that you
are full of shit and that the agent provocateur of the AO-hole (given
irefutable evidence of 8 straight years) is all you.
> If you're not one, as you claim, then you suffer from a profound
> learning disability - that might be a defence. Outside your little
> coterie of devotees there's not one person who rates you as other than
> a buffoon and poltroon. Perhaps that's why it was so easy for the
> High Fans to recruite you ... did I forget to mention that it was a
> "false flag recruitment?" You seriously think you're working for
> somebody else.
This is not an argument, nor is an argument by numbers anything but a
fallacy, nor are you citing any factual evidence to support your
claim.
> Typical of the way you mishandle things is the Taheri correspondence.
> To a dispassionate observer this indicates that Bahai has certain
> rules and will not hesitate to enforce them. They are silly rules -
> they indicate this is a self-centred almost fascist organisation.
A self-centred fascist organization which you serve, per your own
statement:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
> They also indicate that people can get kicked out and can leave. The
> person of liberal sensibilities concludes this is not a very nice
> organisation with which to be associated. He notes however that the
> correspondence does NOT involve a brreach of human rights and that
> critics, such as you, who state that it does are obviously seized more
> of hatred and prone to hyperbole. Exaggeration and the citing of non-
> sustainable criticism merely demeans the critic and strengthens the
> criticised.
Utter bullshit, and it is typical of the self-centred, myopic
fallacious Western neo-liberal "foundation" thinking of the kind Mike
Barker, Noam Chomsky, Franz Fanon and others have torn to pieces in
their writings. It is fallacious fundamentally due to the fact that is
privileging a particular internal discourse of Bahaism (viz. liberal
loyal opposition) as the only legitimate discourse of dissent. Mutatis
mutandis, this is precisely the same discourse being offered by the
liberal opposition of the Islamic republic as well and their
backpeddling regarding that system.
> It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
> which you proved it is.
This, here, makes Haifan Bahaism reasonable to NO ONE:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith
> You have, of course, flogged this to death, over the years, to the
> cringing embarrassment of the family and to the greater glory of the
> AO. If that's the best you can come up with, then the AO is right to
> dismiss you as the pathetic and isolated moron that you present to be.
Then let them dismiss away at their own peril as the counter-
propaganda and information war against their bullshit gains
acceleration, as this here is proves:
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
> At best you can be described as a travelling salesman who hawks the
> wares of others across a few sites on the Internet viz those few that
> haven't banned you for being totally obnoxious. Of the list of
> "triumphs" against the AO, that you interminably thunder, none, that
> may properly be described as triumphs, are of your making. By any
> objective standard most of them are pretty mundane and do not
> represent a terminal threat to the continued existence of the AO.
You think that. Yet facts speak otherwise and my peripheral
involvement in the making of the documentary BIMBY (Bahais in My
Backyard) decisively refutes that non-argument of yours, not to
mention that everything I have said on TRB has in one way or another
made its way into the general discourse of anti-Bahaism in Iran, the
Muslim world and the subcontinent -- and not just amongst
fundamentalists but also amongst moderate and progressive circles.
> The OBF Court Case is currently a major setback to the AO. Hopefully
> it will remain that way if the verdict of the Appeal Court goes the
> way that the OBF (and I) hope it does. Like me, you have no
> involvement in it - it is none of your doing and therefore not one of
> your triumphs by way of which you may be gauged as a major critic of
> the AO. To achieve that staus you need to be creative; to do
> something on your own or with others that secures a public approval as
> a blow against the interests of the AO. You have singularly failed to
> do that.
You think whatever you want. Not only have I succeeded, but the fact
that you have been rolled out here to provide such pathetic missives
of your own (obviously on behalf of the AO) proves beyond any shadow
of a doubt that I have succeeded precisely where it counts. But the
war against the AO is never going to be won in the West, and that is
not my target audience. The final nail in the coffin of the AO-holes
will be nailed in Iran once this present regime is no more which is
one of the reasons why I am desirous to aid in the crumbling of that
system as well by any means necessary.
> Your declaration of Manifestation-hood was pathetic.
But not as pathetic to have stuck a giant celestial hair up your
collective butt-cracks that 7 years later you still can't get over it!
> You touted round
> all the major liberals/dissenters inviting them to become your Letters
> of the Living.
And then dumped them collectively as the pieces of crap that they all
were and still are, yes.
>You told me it was to be a practical joke, obviously
> to get me interested, but failed because I well knew you hadn't (and
> still haven't) got what it takes to carry off a practical joke;
Because it never was a practical joke and you still haven't understood
what the discipline of the arcane is all about.
> something incidentally that on denouement, leaves its victims laughing
> at their own gullibility, not humiliated and degraded. You eventually
> got Starr to back you and then you went your separate ways - why, we
> don't know -
Because, like you, she was a mole for the system and got caught.
>with Starr subject to the hail of abuse that is your
> trademark denunciation of any who fail to toe your line, do what you
> want to do and worship you as the greatest thing since disposable
> diapers. This incident actually well illustrates how totally clueless
> you are and how immune you are to advice from older and wiser heads.
> No liberal/dissident Bahai was going to be associated in any way with
> a schismatic movement of any kind - far less one headed by a plonker
> like you. You should have known that from the Majnun letter - you got
> your balls chewed off for suggesting something that was directly
> contrary to the rules and would have given the AO the unfettered right
> to kick the whole lot out for heresy. Does Nima think ... does Nima
> learn ...? DUH! Did your handler suggest this as a way of getting the
> liberals/dissenters to throw themselves outside the pale (and be
> legitimately condemned as CBs) thus getting rid of the pesky lot in
Blah, blah blah, wee leperchauns playing wee tunes in Dermod Ryder's
empty head! Where is the evidence in all this, asshole? The above are
all incoherent reflections of a senile mind who has never understood,
nor will ever understand, what I am actually about. Incoherent
speculations are not evidence.
> Let us recall another one of your phone calls ... taken by my wife
> (herself a BIGS). You told her the "word was on the street" that
> everybody within the Liberal?Dissident camp was about to be declared a
> Covenant Breaker and asked her if this happened what her reaction
> would be ...
And Mollah Momen's little Journal of RELIGION diatribe proved me right
in that at the time this was precisely what your masters were
contemplating. And, yes, Paula said "she would stick with her man."
Good on her. But WTF does this have to do with your incoherent, senile
ramblings and the evidence you claim to have? Nothing! Jack-diddly
squat!!
>after all, a BIGS cannot, in good faith, remain married
> to a CB. When I later spoke to you I got the distinct impression that
> the dung was dropping in your drawers at the mere rumour of this.
Really? The dung was dropping yet I had the tenacity to publicly
declare myself the true HWGSMM and Husayn 'Ali as the fraud? Dead
Weed, your own narratives are beginning to lose all consistency.
> She
> and I both assured you that if it were to transpire than the AO would
> get a suitable response from both of us .. that it would not like at
> all ... as I recall it the message was to the effect of "A four letter
> word that rhymes with duck" followed by "off". Now, so far as I know,
> nobody else heard of this rumour.
Until, for practical reasons, your masters decided that apostacy was a
better moniker than CB-hood given the lawsuits that would fly. And FYI
the rumor that the AO-holes were about to imminently declare people
CBs came originally from JUAN COLE.
>Did your handlers ask you to find
> out if I would be intimidated by this threat and, perhapss more
> importantly -
Do I give a rat's ass how you have been squirming, wiggling and lying
in the past 8 years in your personal life?
>did my wife's loyalties lie with me and she whom you
> have referred to as a "spastick brat" or did it lie with the AO?
She is a Bahai in Good Standing, is she not? And why has she not been
disenrolled, if you really are an opponent of the AO-holes, which you
are not. Right there is another giant hole in your narative, i.e. your
wife's continued BIGS status in the AO Haifan-cult just as Steve
Marshall's is one in Alison's.
> You
> and it got the answer it did not want to receive.
And what was that?
>OTOH if it was a
> genuine rumour and you had not at that juncture crossed to the dark
> side you, at least, got an injection of moral fibre that was badly
> needed. En passant I will note that the vast majority of the Bahais
> (of all sides) lack guts - there are notable and honourable
> exceptions, among whom you are not enumerated.
Sour grapes, dead weed. That is what all this is about with you, and
the fact that you don't have a coherent story to fall back on.
> Let us also refer to another phone call wherein you solemnly informed
> me that you had evidence (sound familiar) that a very prominent Bahai
> liberal was on the point of defecting to the Orthodox Bahai Faith and
> that he had done a deal with Joel Marangella whereby in return for or
> subsequent to that defection, he would be publicly named as Joel's
> successor to the Guardianship.
Bullshit! I never told you such thing. I told you Juan Cole was
attempting to woo the Marangellists over to his own side and somehow
use them for his own purposes. But the rest of the story turned out in
a similar veing, since a liberal Persian Bahai in the form of Nosrat
Bahremand actually did defect to uncle Joel and has subsequently been
named as his successor. Your senility has merely confused the
narratives.
>You asked me to post this to TRB.
When? Evidence??
> I
> asked for sight of the evidence ... even then. None was forthcoming.
Now you are blatantly LYING.
> I wrote to Joel stating what you had told me though not naming you as
> the source, merely referring to you as a "source that is normally
> reliable."
You are lying again!
> I got a very nice and courteous reply scotching the whole
> rumour.
BS.
>Needless to say I did not make the posting you had requested
> and marked you down as basically unreliable - information from you,
> unless corroborated and verified would not be used by me.
BS.
> Why were
> you surprised I did not swallow your cant about Paul ... and you did
> try to be so persuasive on the phone?
Nope, this is where you have it all backwards. I knew you and Hammond
where working closely together as of 2001. I let you make statements
to me on the phone, all of which I recorded, and an email - which I
subsequently posted here. Your behavior before and after the "I am
moving to agree with you with Palu" proved beyond any shadow of a
doubt that you were actually on the take with the AO yourself -- and
it proved it to a lot of different people!
>The letter to you re Paul was
> hatched and despatched with the knowledge and approval of other
> liberal/dissidents.
LOL! What about this, then,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
>By that stage your credibility as a source of
> reliable information was suspect in the eyes of many.
Dermod, you have put too much stock in yourself. Really, no one even
amongst the schmuck liberals has ever taken you seriously either. You
know it, and I know it too.
> Had you
> supplied the evidence you said you had and had it withstood scrutiny
> then the situation would have developed differently. But you had no
> evidence and you have even less now.
I had no obligation to supply anything to you or hack AO-hole friends,
not then, not now.
>
> Let us not forget Zuhur - the, safe from the prying eyes of the AO,
> list for liberals/dissident that you founded and whose membership you
> vetted and vouched for. It leaked like a colander as I found out when
> Susie Maneck took utmost delight in exposing me as one of the evil
> geniuses behind Brave New World.
You have Alison Marshall to thank for that (a co-moderator of that
list), the same Alison Marshall whose husband Steve has continued to
talk to Susan Maneck without interruption. Surprise, surprise ;-)
> And where had she gleaned this juicy
> bit of gossip?
The Marshalls.
>Why from none other than Zuhur .. the safe list whose
> membership was vetted and vouched for by Nima Hazini Esq.
And whose co-moderator was Alison marshall whose husband was Steve.
>You were
> either a total plonker OR you worked for the AO supplying it with all
> the details of conversations exchanged between liberal/dissidents.
Nope, that was all done by Steve Marshall, you, Paul Hammond and the
various other aliases lurking there.
> Oh and you'd purely love us to sue you ... is that because the AO
> won't? Fact is that the AO doesn't waste time suing or even
> considering suing nonentities like you. That's why you're frantically
> running around asking anybody around here to run you into Court. OTOH
> as Susie delighted in telling me the AO had definitely wanted to sue
> and took legal advice on the possibility of suing the evil geniuses
> behind Brave New World on the grounds that its satirical content was
> so close to the real thing that it might have confused the BIGS -
Dermod, your downfall - as John Woodlock once publicly pointed out to
you - is that you actually put stock in your own hype. You have the
wee leperchauns in your head to thank for that. Frankly, your
credentials have never impressed me, nor has your name ever been
defamed on the first page of a national Bahai magazine as mine.
> Jeffrey might just be familiar with that whole concept. So Babe, as a
> critic of the AO that puts me way ahead of you ...
Way ahead in the trash can in the negative, yes, especially since you
have done nothing in 8 years other than to consistently back the
system at every turn.
-
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
-
NUR
Dead Weed Ryder's non-argument is that whereas I got a full paragraph
devoted to me in Momen's published rant, as did George Flemming,
nowhere in the finished product is there the slightest mention of
Dermod Ryder. And given the fact that I had threatened the AO-holes
explicitly that should they defame my name again in any published
medium that I would taken to the Chinese cleaners and back again, and
given the fact that I am only identified as BB, this should
demonstrate 1) that the agent provocateur argument is complete
bullshit and 2) that the AO-hole system takes me extremely seriously
in my threats; this, whereas with Dermod Ryder there is no such thing
given that he serves this system himself.
Finnegan's Wake
> thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
>
> -
>
> http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
Finnegan's Wake
You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
begging people to sue you.
I think that Momen got sound legal and other advice not to mention me
at all. Unlike you Nima, the local AO know that I'm not only prepared
but do resort to Court when I have a case.
And if you had thought this through you would actually ponder what
anybody could conclude from the fact that you have not been formally
condemned as a CB. Furthermore I have been so long out of the BF that
his hypothesis could not hold in my case and I had also thoroughly
declared that my presence in cyberspace was, for the most part,
motivated by sheer rascality. That does not fit his profile.
NUR
wrote:
> You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
> you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
> begging people to sue you.
Bad, transparent sleight of hand, Dead Weed. The point is that whereas
you got no mention whatsoever in that published diabtribe of Mullah
Momen's, both George Fleming and I did, not to mention Rachel Woodlock
(another individual you royally screwed). And the AO-holes know that
whether I sue them or they sue me, either way the outcome will be
exactly the same and their worlds will be rocked!
> I think that Momen got sound legal and other advice not to mention me
> at all. Unlike you Nima, the local AO know that I'm not only prepared
> but do resort to Court when I have a case.
You are a nobody, Dermod: A senile, wasted, has-been clown on an ego-
trip of nonexistent self-importance where no one other than a bunch of
wasted pub crawlers on the AOnion take like yourself remotely take you
seriously, is what you are, viz. the object of the wee leperchauns in
your head. John Woodlock told you this fair and square, and as matter
factly as it could be put, back in early 2001 on Zuhur19 itself. Also,
what might be going on in the back of your mind to bring you back here
(besides other obvious reasons) is pure raw envy and jealousy of moi
because I am what you only ever fantasized about and never actually
became!
> And if you had thought this through you would actually ponder what
> anybody could conclude from the fact that you have not been formally
> condemned as a CB.
I have been formally declared an Apostate (murtad) in case you've
failed to take your head out of your big jackass and pay attention for
over the past 26 months. No one other than individuals who have either
1) actively associated with the various non-Haifan groups (Remeyites,
etc) or 2) individuals who have associated with family and progeny of
those declared CBs by Shoghidelic (such as the Kiwi woman in NZ who
associated with a CB Afnan) have been declared CBs by the AO-holes.
For all their innane stupidites and buffoonery, the AO-holes at least
realize that declaring someone like myself a CB comes with a heavy
cost: loss of revenue from my greater extended family who have
remained within the fold, for starters, who have been dishing out
truck loads of money to these bastards for decades now; this, not to
mention that any insinuation of declared institutional "shunning" of
another person in the Australian legal system is not just an issue at
tort (it is not just a civil matter) but also a criminal offense!
Since before her move to the UK in 2002 my sister briefly served as a
legal counsel to the NSA of Australia, this is how I know first hand
that the AO-holes have been shiting an entire brickyard quary of
bricks where I am concerned because they also know if and when push
came to shove, I would have their collective guts for garters with
spices and relish all over the place inside a court room! Last year
the point was brought very poignantly home to them with Sourcewatch.
Ask your kiddie fiddler friend and your superiors in the BIA to
explain this to you.
>Furthermore I have been so long out of the BF that
> his hypothesis could not hold in my case
So why are you back on TRB now after a long 18 month hiatus when the
exposures have been smoothly running their course(s) like a bleeding
bull in a room full of falling dominos? And why haven't you offered
one of your own since 2003 and instead been continually on the back of
all those who have whilst consistently siding with the BIA hacks
here?? That you refuse to even answer or offer a semblance of an
answer to this question proves that the hypothesis regarding you not
only holds water but it is indisputable, irrefutable, to-a-moral-
certainty fact, i.e. that you are on the take and part of the AO-hole
system of the BIA. But I will also offer this theory: I personally
believe you switched sides sometime in 2002/2003 and went over to the
AO-holes out of pure spite and also out of your innate lack of
internal resolve and committment to anything beyond your own
buffoonery and total shallowness! No one took you seriously on
Zunur19. The Marshalls couldn't stand you and said so on numerous
occasions. Juan Cole outright believed you were a mole for the system
and said as much to me point blank a couple of times, which I didn't
at the time heed or pay attention to.
>and I had also thoroughly
> declared that my presence in cyberspace was, for the most part,
> motivated by sheer rascality. That does not fit his profile.
Au contraire, Mr leperchaun-in-the-head-man, it fits the profile to
the letter! And here, once again, is one tiny sample of the
irrefutable proof:
From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
See also,
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
Steve Blomberg
experience has been that you enter the debate wit the intent to attack
anything I say no matter what.
I don't follow Nima or anybody else.You should have the integrity to
agree with a sound argument, remain silent, or refute it with solid
reasons.
You exhibit none of these.
Now, you do know well that I could not care less if you criticise
Bahais when it comes to for example gay marriage, etc. I have raised
many issues questioning the truth of the Bahai claim, and I think you
came forward in majority of them, such as the latest debacle of yours.
So, don't tire yourself splitting hair, you know exactly what I said.
As far as I am concerned, you are here to defend Bahai positions at
any cost.
> > You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
> > disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say.
>
> That is not a fact. I'm sorry if it's your perception.
>
> I have no animus against Bayanis, just against Nima for running a
> smear campaign against me here for a very long time.
I am no saying you have a hatred towards Bayanis. The fact that you
are not prepared to accept a simple fact such and try to divert the
debate to all sort of directions indicates to me that you did not join
to find the truth of the matter, you joined because your preference is
not to see the Bahai side to be proven false in particular when the
other side rejects the Bahaism entirely.
I am not going to hypotheseize about your motivations (though I can
guess), they would be irrelevant.
>
> However, as someone with mathematical training, I'm not about to let
> you get away with illogical arguments, or arguments based on shaky or
> doubtful premises.
I think I have tested your mathematical training before and you didn't
seem to have a grasp of notations used in first order logic which were
pretty basic.
Anyhow, You have shown over and over that you are illogical, so don't
come to me and talk about logic.
>
> Hence, my objection to you basing an argument on the premise
>
> "because the Baha'is on this site have not mentioned the Bab, they do
> not see him as an important figure, and admit that Baha'u'llah is not
> the Bab's successor"
>
> I have suggested other, more reasonable arguments as to why some
> Baha'is drawing up a website for general assumption might omit the
> name of the Bab.
>
> But rather than engage with what I have said, you have preferred to
> decide that I am prejudiced.
>
Well! Rather than offering hypothetical alternatives and putting them
to me that this is what they might have meant, you could try to behave
logical and say the material posted in that page has omission and
errors, but what they say may not be really what they believe.
Since when Mathematicians based their arguments on guess and hopeful
assertions?
> That's your choice - but I will not allow you to parrot Nima's lies
> about me and let them pass for truth.
Again, you have known me enough to admit that I form my own views.
I don't have to justify myself.
NUR
I hope you are seeing the irony and comedy for what it is, since I am
having a good old laugh and shake of the head at this guy. He is
begging you to see things his way. How pathetic can one get!
W
Finnegan's Wake
Exactly! I'm also having a good old laugh at a stupid fecker around
here who tries and tried to get folks to see things his way and when
he failed to do immediately condemned them as arch-agents for his
enemies. The fool thinks that because he rolls out a bandwagon
everybody should jump on it without question cos if they don't he's
gonna jump all over them!.
How pathetic have you become!
>
> W
PaulHammond
> On Feb 19, 9:57 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > NUR wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 3:23 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > > > NUR wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 2) you know his middle name and it isn't Andrew.
>
> > > > > Actually we do now ;-) Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so. So
> > > > > then get outta of here, kiddie fiddler...
>
> > > > That's convenient for you, that you suddenly decide that. Isn't it?
>
> > > Prove otherwise. You haven't provided a single leaf of documentation
> > > disabusing it. You simply rant and assert without proof. G'head
> > > provide any documentation proving that you are a different Paul
> > > Hammond.
>
> > I started off simply asking a question
>
> > 2) What is this guy's middle name
>
> Andrew. Can you prove different?
>
Richard. Ditto.
> See also Baha'i CULT FAQhttp://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PaulHammond
> On Feb 19, 11:12 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 10:00 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have excelled yourself - 773 words of total absolute drivel with
> > not one fact or verifiable regerence that relates to the subject to
> > hand - viz your position as an agent provocateur working for the aims
> > of the BF.
>
> Because the drivel is all in your own head given that you are
> incapable of addressing a single item of argument in that missive that
> demonstrates clearly, transparently and to a moral certainty that you
> are full of shit and that the agent provocateur of the AO-hole (given
> irefutable evidence of 8 straight years) is all you.
>
> > If you're not one, as you claim, then you suffer from a profound
> > learning disability - that might be a defence. Outside your little
> > coterie of devotees there's not one person who rates you as other than
> > a buffoon and poltroon. Perhaps that's why it was so easy for the
> > High Fans to recruite you ... did I forget to mention that it was a
> > "false flag recruitment?" You seriously think you're working for
> > somebody else.
>
> This is not an argument, nor is an argument by numbers anything but a
> fallacy, nor are you citing any factual evidence to support your
> claim.
>
No. It's an assertion. Can you prove it's not true?
I don't really see how a suspicion that the AO benefits from your
activities, and that Dermod has come across some information that the
High Fans have got you doing their dirty work counts as an "argument
by numbers" - that's not really something that's decidable by a
popular vote.
Paul
PaulHammond
That's your prejudice. Not your experience.
Steve, the evidence of THIS thread is that after attacking me on THIS
basis:
"What I do know is that Paul is
here to defend Bahais at any cost."
You decided to change your grounds and pretend that you'd said
something difference.
Isn't it about time you grew a pair of debating balls and stood behind
something that you've said, rather than retreating from it and
pretending you didn't change what you said?
> I don't follow Nima or anybody else.You should have the integrity to
> agree with a sound argument, remain silent, or refute it with solid
> reasons.
I do have such integrity. I attacked your most recent argument on the
grounds that it was based on a weak, and almost definitely false
premise. You have retorted by attacking me on the basis of my
personality and the fact that you find Nima's lies about me more
palatable than the truth
To me, that makes you one of Nima's followers. You really ought to
make up your own mind, didn't you?
> You exhibit none of these.
> Now, you do know well that I could not care less if you criticise
> Bahais when it comes to for example gay marriage,
I know. I recalled, after I'd done it, that you considered support
for gay marriage an example of western decadence.
Seeing as how you have that DIRECT experience of me disagreeing with
one of the Baha'i Beliefs that you say I come here to support, you
ought to have the honesty to admit that you were wrong when you said
that I am here as a Baha'i propagandist.
You've got personal experience of me disagreeing with Baha'i teachings
- so you should know better than to follow Nima's lead blindly.
etc. I have raised
> many issues questioning the truth of the Bahai claim,
Well, I can help you out here. I believe the Baha'i claims to be
untrue.
As they reckon Baha'u'llah is a "Manifestation of God", and I reckon
that God does not exist.
It follows, that I reckon Baha'u'llah's claim to be untrue.
I reckon he, and the Baha'is are sincere in believing it to be true,
though - as I reckon that you belief in the Bab is sincere.
But neither world view is really for me.
>and I think you
> came forward in majority of them, such as the latest debacle of yours.
It's your opinion that my latest attempt to debate you was a
"debacle".
For me, it's pretty clear that you were arguing from a false premise,
and THAT is a weak argument.
This is all I pointed out. Apparently, that's been a good enough
excuse for you to try to get personal with me.
I ask you not to continue to peddle Nima's rumours about me when you
know from your personal experience of me that much of what he says
about me is just total tosh. That's not too much to ask of you, is
it?
> So, don't tire yourself splitting hair, you know exactly what I said.
Most of the time, what you have said is unclear, or you change it when
challenged.
> As far as I am concerned, you are here to defend Bahai positions at
> any cost.
>
That is a lie. You ought to have better judgement than to believe or
peddle such lies at the behest of an old smear-merchant like Nima.
Grow a pair of balls, Steve, and start to make your own decisions for
a change!
> > > You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
> > > disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say.
> >
> > That is not a fact. I'm sorry if it's your perception.
> >
> > I have no animus against Bayanis, just against Nima for running a
> > smear campaign against me here for a very long time.
>
> I am no saying you have a hatred towards Bayanis.
Although, that WAS what you just said in the previous post:
"I said you were a staunch supporter of
baha'is who is not prepared to accept an anti Bahai position coming
from a bayani."
Maybe you'd better get it clear in your head what, exactly, you do
want to say about me in future?
>The fact that you
> are not prepared to accept a simple fact such and try to divert the
> debate to all sort of directions indicates to me that you did not join
> to find the truth of the matter, you joined because your preference is
> not to see the Bahai side to be proven false in particular when the
> other side rejects the Bahaism entirely.
> I am not going to hypotheseize about your motivations (though I can
> guess), they would be irrelevant.
>
Why stop now when you've been doing nothing but hypothesise about my
motivations since you started joining Nima's smear-chorus against me?
Believers, eh? All a bunch of hypocrites!
That's enough for this post,
Paul
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
>
> > It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
> > which you proved it is.
>
> This, here, makes Haifan Bahaism reasonable to NO ONE:
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith
>
Of course it doesn't. You and May wrote it.
That'd by like expecting a wikipedia page on Jewish history written by
Hitler make the Jews look good!
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:04 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
> > you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
> > begging people to sue you.
>
> Bad, transparent sleight of hand, Dead Weed. The point is that whereas
> you got no mention whatsoever in that published diabtribe of Mullah
> Momen's, both George Fleming and I did, not to mention Rachel Woodlock
> (another individual you royally screwed). And the AO-holes know that
> whether I sue them or they sue me, either way the outcome will be
> exactly the same and their worlds will be rocked!
>
> > I think that Momen got sound legal and other advice not to mention me
> > at all. Unlike you Nima, the local AO know that I'm not only prepared
> > but do resort to Court when I have a case.
>
> You are a nobody, Dermod: A senile, wasted, has-been clown on an ego-
> trip of nonexistent self-importance where no one other than a bunch of
> wasted pub crawlers on the AOnion take like yourself remotely take you
> seriously, is what you are, viz. the object of the wee leperchauns in
> your head. John Woodlock told you this fair and square, and as matter
> factly as it could be put, back in early 2001 on Zuhur19 itself.
I don't recall John Woodlock saying this on Zuhur. Do you have a link
at all? I think I'd have remembered a ginormous bust-up between
Dermod and John at that stage.
This seems to me more like another case of Caliban not wanting to look
in the mirror.
Similarly, you didn't like it when Eric Stetson got over his anger at
the Baha'is and moved on, posting a public apology here and elsewhere
to anyone he might have upset in those days - he'd earlier retracted
something that he said about me in 1996 that you continue to repost.
> Also,
> what might be going on in the back of your mind to bring you back here
> (besides other obvious reasons) is pure raw envy and jealousy of moi
> because I am what you only ever fantasized about and never actually
> became!
>
Dermod says that what's brought him back to post here is that he's
received new evidence about the game that's REALLY going on behind
your scorched-earth efforts to dominate debate at this site.
>But I will also offer this theory: I personally
> believe you switched sides sometime in 2002/2003 and went over to the
> AO-holes out of pure spite and also out of your innate lack of
> internal resolve and committment to anything beyond your own
> buffoonery and total shallowness! No one took you seriously on
> Zunur19. The Marshalls couldn't stand you and said so on numerous
> occasions. Juan Cole outright believed you were a mole for the system
> and said as much to me point blank a couple of times, which I didn't
> at the time heed or pay attention to.
>
Hmm. And what do you think, these days, about the Marshalls, Juan
Cole, your former letter of the living Starr*, Eric Stetson, William
Pleasant etc?
According to YOU, they were all secretly working for the AO, and now
Dermod is too.
Or is it more likely that they all weren't secretly working for the
AO, but you were?
Paul
Steve Blomberg
with Wake on his use of the term 'Azali' and his abuse of Bayani
faith.
In every single thread I have had discussion when you got involved,
you were intent on attacking sometimes without even knowing anything
about the matter.
As far as I am concerned you are here to blindly defend Bahais.
> > I don't follow Nima or anybody else.You should have the integrity to
> > agree with a sound argument, remain silent, or refute it with solid
> > reasons.
>
> I do have such integrity. I attacked your most recent argument on the
> grounds that it was based on a weak, and almost definitely false
> premise. You have retorted by attacking me on the basis of my
> personality and the fact that you find Nima's lies about me more
> palatable than the truth
You have some guts!
You don't have the least integrity!
There was nothing simpler and undeniable than the points I made about
that stupid article.
If you were not there just to attack no matter what you would have
either remained silent or agreed with me. But instead you could not
refute the errors but you did offer guessing on behalf of the poster.
Again, you are dragging Nima into this. You are inflicted with
paranoia.
There was no attack. I stated my views about the role you have played
in this forum as far as I am concerned.
>
> To me, that makes you one of Nima's followers. You really ought to
> make up your own mind, didn't you?
I took your word for not being formally a Bahai, despite over-actively
defending their psoitions.
My posts are my proof that I independently form my views. But you
don't have the integrity to accept that. That is part of your line of
attack.
>
> > You exhibit none of these.
> > Now, you do know well that I could not care less if you criticise
> > Bahais when it comes to for example gay marriage,
>
> I know. I recalled, after I'd done it, that you considered support
> for gay marriage an example of western decadence.
That was the sort of thing you were criticizing Bahais for,
coincidentally the opposition to homosexuality is a principal that was
set from much earlier and recently in Islam.
But I am not going there, this is a different topic.
>
> Seeing as how you have that DIRECT experience of me disagreeing with
> one of the Baha'i Beliefs that you say I come here to support, you
> ought to have the honesty to admit that you were wrong when you said
> that I am here as a Baha'i propagandist.
You are trying to get me on stupid technicality.
Read what I said about what earlier religions had said about
homosexuality.
As far as I am concerned you are here to defend Bahai positions at any
cost.
>
> You've got personal experience of me disagreeing with Baha'i teachings
> - so you should know better than to follow Nima's lead blindly.
>
> etc. I have raised
>
Read what I said earlier.
> > many issues questioning the truth of the Bahai claim,
>
> Well, I can help you out here. I believe the Baha'i claims to be
> untrue.
>
> As they reckon Baha'u'llah is a "Manifestation of God", and I reckon
> that God does not exist.
>
> It follows, that I reckon Baha'u'llah's claim to be untrue.
>
> I reckon he, and the Baha'is are sincere in believing it to be true,
> though - as I reckon that you belief in the Bab is sincere.
>
> But neither world view is really for me.
>
As far as I am concerned you are here to defend Bahai positions.
Now, the thing I was hopping you get was that being a Bayani, my
topics have been dealing with the validity of the truth of Bahai claim
in respecto the religion of Bayan.
And, everytime I did that I did not have a Bahai to defend it with
argument, I had you defending it with no aqrgument.
> >and I think you
> > came forward in majority of them, such as the latest debacle of yours.
>
> It's your opinion that my latest attempt to debate you was a
> "debacle".
>
> For me, it's pretty clear that you were arguing from a false premise,
> and THAT is a weak argument.
False premise! You have no idea what you are talking about.
My premise is the book from which Bahais could not have trasngresed as
far as the promised one is concerned.
You still have not had the guts to agree with me that the material
that was posted had serious omission and distortion. Wake at least had
some thought as to what the motivation for teh omission could have
been. But you were simply apologizing for the poster .
>
> This is all I pointed out. Apparently, that's been a good enough
> excuse for you to try to get personal with me.
There is nothing personal here, you are getting paranoid here. I
commented on your role here on trb.
>
> I ask you not to continue to peddle Nima's rumours about me when you
> know from your personal experience of me that much of what he says
> about me is just total tosh. That's not too much to ask of you, is
> it?
You have no proof that my views are not my own.
You should have a recollection of my encounters with you and I am
well positioned to form my view about your role here.
>
> > So, don't tire yourself splitting hair, you know exactly what I said.
>
> Most of the time, what you have said is unclear, or you change it when
> challenged.
Most of the time, you have no argument when you step in to defend
Bahai positions when I question their validity in respect to Bayan.
You simply lack the familiarity with the Bayanic literature and its
history. Most likely, you have now learned quite few things about what
Bayanis think about some of those Bahai claims.
That is where you try to divert to all different directions, pretend
things don't make sense to you, ask for repeat of answer over and
over, make guess, hypothesize, et. etc.
>
> > As far as I am concerned, you are here to defend Bahai positions at
> > any cost.
>
> That is a lie. You ought to have better judgement than to believe or
> peddle such lies at the behest of an old smear-merchant like Nima.
> Grow a pair of balls, Steve, and start to make your own decisions for
> a change!
I don't have to repeat myself.
>
> > > > You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
> > > > disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say.
>
> > > That is not a fact. I'm sorry if it's your perception.
>
> > > I have no animus against Bayanis, just against Nima for running a
> > > smear campaign against me here for a very long time.
>
> > I am no saying you have a hatred towards Bayanis.
>
> Although, that WAS what you just said in the previous post:
>
> "I said you were a staunch supporter of
> baha'is who is not prepared to accept an anti Bahai position coming
> from a bayani."
>
> Maybe you'd better get it clear in your head what, exactly, you do
> want to say about me in future?
I am very clear, you pretend ignorance. You know what I have been
arguing for.
If you think you have got it now, how about denying it?
>
> >The fact that you
> > are not prepared to accept a simple fact such and try to divert the
> > debate to all sort of directions indicates to me that you did not join
> > to find the truth of the matter, you joined because your preference is
> > not to see the Bahai side to be proven false in particular when the
> > other side rejects the Bahaism entirely.
> > I am not going to hypotheseize about your motivations (though I can
> > guess), they would be irrelevant.
>
> Why stop now when you've been doing nothing but hypothesise about my
> motivations since you started joining Nima's smear-chorus against me?
>
> Believers, eh? All a bunch of hypocrites!
You are still hung up on Nima. Stop thinking of him.
Tell me! In the latest encounter with you, did you agree with me that
there was in fact an omission in the posted article or not?
Did you agree with me that the quoted prophecies from Iqan were
produced by Husayn-Ali to support the Point of Bayan not to support
Husayn-Ali's claim?
No you didn't.
Did you prove that there was no omission and the quoted prophecies
were in fact to support the Bahai claim?
No you didn't.
What did you do?
You guessed and apologized for the poster.
Finnegan's Wake
Finnegan's Wake
> wrote:
>
> > You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
> > you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
> > begging people to sue you.
>
> Bad, transparent sleight of hand, Dead Weed. The point is that whereas
> you got no mention whatsoever in that published diabtribe of Mullah
> Momen's, both George Fleming and I did, not to mention Rachel Woodlock
> (another individual you royally screwed). And the AO-holes know that
> whether I sue them or they sue me, either way the outcome will be
> exactly the same and their worlds will be rocked!
So you have reached stalemate with the AO – you have no cause to sue
it and it has no cause to sue you. This pattern of continual
threatening with no outcome is the sort of classic posturing that is
not at all incompatible with the proposition that it and you are
irretrievably linked to achieve a common outcome. It is of course
necessary for you to indulge in attempted character assassination in
the absence of evidence to rebut the charge laid against you.
> > I think that Momen got sound legal and other advice not to mention me
> > at all. Unlike you Nima, the local AO know that I'm not only prepared
> > but do resort to Court when I have a case.
>
> You are a nobody, Dermod: A senile, wasted, has-been clown on an ego-
> trip of nonexistent self-importance where no one other than a bunch of
> wasted pub crawlers on the AOnion take like yourself remotely take you
> seriously, is what you are, viz. the object of the wee leperchauns in
> your head. John Woodlock told you this fair and square, and as matter
> factly as it could be put, back in early 2001 on Zuhur19 itself.
Exactly … I’m only here for the craic and to put a little excitement
into my life.
> Also,
> what might be going on in the back of your mind to bring you back here
> (besides other obvious reasons) is pure raw envy and jealousy of moi
> because I am what you only ever fantasized about and never actually
> became!
Well … I’ve never wanted to become you. I doubt very much that any
sane person in the world would want to become like you. And at least
… I know how to play poker … and I didn’t pay 5 grand to somebody,
who then scarpered ,to vanity publish a book. But apart from that and
the fact you’re a short-arse with zero intelligence squared
………..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz !
> > And if you had thought this through you would actually ponder what
> > anybody could conclude from the fact that you have not been formally
> > condemned as a CB.
>
> I have been formally declared an Apostate (murtad) in case you've
> failed to take your head out of your big jackass and pay attention for
> over the past 26 months. No one other than individuals who have either
> 1) actively associated with the various non-Haifan groups (Remeyites,
> etc) or 2) individuals who have associated with family and progeny of
> those declared CBs by Shoghidelic (such as the Kiwi woman in NZ who
> associated with a CB Afnan) have been declared CBs by the AO-holes.
Would that not include Azalis?
I understand that there is no formal penalty for apostasy within
Bahaism , unlike Islam. I thought that was one of the modifications
that had been made. So apostate is an empty title that merely informs
the BIGS that you’re not a nice person. It’s not unlike the informal
title of “undeclared CB” or “as bad as a CB” that is much utilized
within the community to protect it from adverse influences. Many have
been granted that status including moi. You’re only a beginner!
> For all their innane stupidites and buffoonery, the AO-holes at least
> realize that declaring someone like myself a CB comes with a heavy
> cost: loss of revenue from my greater extended family who have
> remained within the fold, for starters, who have been dishing out
> truck loads of money to these bastards for decades now; this, not to
> mention that any insinuation of declared institutional "shunning" of
> another person in the Australian legal system is not just an issue at
> tort (it is not just a civil matter) but also a criminal offense!
So your family remains within the fold despite the shame of including
an apostate within its ranks. I would have thought that if the family
supported you the money supply to the AO (which you note continues to
flow) would have dried up. If they’re as heavily generous with the
dosh, as you say they’d have the influence …
I have seen it noted that your mother thinks you are a menace to
society. Might this lead one to conclude that perhaps your family is
well content to be rid of and has disposed of you, preferring and
funding the AO instead, which would undoubtedly be to their advantage
but not to ours?
> Since before her move to the UK in 2002 my sister briefly served as a
> legal counsel to the NSA of Australia, this is how I know first hand
> that the AO-holes have been shiting an entire brickyard quary of
> bricks where I am concerned because they also know if and when push
> came to shove, I would have their collective guts for garters with
> spices and relish all over the place inside a court room!
I think your sister may have to explain why she breached her
professional duty of counsel/ client confidentiality and conveyed to
you information that would seem to be legally privileged. In this
jurisdiction that would amount to professional misconduct and lead to
disciplinary proceedings. I would think that if the statement you
have were to be proven in the course of such proceedings, your sister
would face the very real peril of being disbarred from practice.
Last year
> the point was brought very poignantly home to them with Sourcewatch.
> Ask your kiddie fiddler friend and your superiors in the BIA to
> explain this to you.
OMG! You triumphed and got an article put on Sourcewatch! Trebles all
round!
It doesn’t say a lot … does it! Whilst reading it I was doing a
mental comparison between the BF (as per Sourcewatch) and
theTeletubbies and guess what … your article made the Teletubbies look
like a bunch of international terrorists!
Keen observers may note the remarkable resemblance of you to the Noo-
Noo: -
“Noo-Noo (prononced Nuu-Nuu) seems to be both the Teletubbies'
guardian and housekeeper, due to its resemblance to a vacuum cleaner,
which is its principal purpose in the house. Noo-Noo hardly ventures
outside, instead remaining indoors and constantly cleaning with its
sucker-like nose. It does not speak like the other characters, instead
communicating through a series of slurping and sucking noises. At
times, Noo-Noo gets annoyed with the Teletubbies' antics and can
vacuum their food or toys. This usually prompts the Teletubbies to
scold Noo-Noo through a cry of "Naughty Noo-Noo!". Usually after this,
Noo-Noo flees and the Teletubbies pursue it comically around the house
until they grow tired, are distracted by something, or forgive Noo-
Noo. This sequence ends with them hugging it, or with it shooting out
their absorbed objects.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies
So, Nima, are you a vacuous cleaner?
> >Furthermore I have been so long out of the BF that
> > his hypothesis could not hold in my case
>
> So why are you back on TRB now after a long 18 month hiatus when the
> exposures have been smoothly running their course(s) like a bleeding
> bull in a room full of falling dominos? And why haven't you offered
> one of your own since 2003 and instead been continually on the back of
> all those who have whilst consistently siding with the BIA hacks
> here??
Well, you see, we have this juicy document, which could wait … but I
have a heavy meet next week with a bunch of dorks and I needed a
little match practice. I thought of you first …
That you refuse to even answer or offer a semblance of an
> answer to this question proves that the hypothesis regarding you not
> only holds water but it is indisputable, irrefutable, to-a-moral-
> certainty fact, i.e. that you are on the take and part of the AO-hole
> system of the BIA.
Now that’s my line … no more plagiarism from you!
But I will also offer this theory: I personally
> believe you switched sides sometime in 2002/2003 and went over to the
> AO-holes out of pure spite and also out of your innate lack of
> internal resolve and committment to anything beyond your own
> buffoonery and total shallowness!
So shallow I could not recognize the greatness in you … mea maxima
culpa!
>No one took you seriously on
> Zunur19.
Wow!!!! Success at last!!!!
>The Marshalls couldn't stand you and said so on numerous
> occasions.
To anybody I know?
But I’d think they’d prefer me to you … anybody with brains would …
don’tcha agree?
> Juan Cole outright believed you were a mole for the system
> and said as much to me point blank a couple of times, which I didn't
> at the time heed or pay attention to.
Did he indeed … and to think you missed it! Well, as other posts have
pointed out – you’re not exactly over-endowed with insight.
In fact have you not heaped opprobrium on Juan The Man for, inter
alia, refusing to back your manifestationnness ? Could you trust the
opinion of such a man on anything?
> >and I had also thoroughly
> > declared that my presence in cyberspace was, for the most part,
> > motivated by sheer rascality. That does not fit his profile.
>
> Au contraire, Mr leperchaun-in-the-head-man, it fits the profile to
> the letter! And here, once again, is one tiny sample of the
> irrefutable proof:
>
> From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
> thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
> lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
>
> The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
> attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
> behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
> destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
>
> Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
> A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
> The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
> would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
> method.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
> thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
Yes … indeed these are proof of my utter and total rascality and
there’s plenty more including lotsa ROFLMAO from Nima Hazini Esq.
Ya see dear boy, when I came online I committed some terrible outrages
that an inferior like you could never have dreamt up in the first
place(you lack originality)and that nobody else had the cajones to do.
Within my first year my “special projects” had sent two fundie loonies
on gardening leave. And guess what. Diddums, I got a lot of help,
advice and assistance from folks you state thought of me only as a
buffoon. And you weren’t included in the circle of trust for a number
of the “special projects” – indeed some of them I still can’t reveal
or talk about openly – because, quite honestly, you didn’t have what
it took to support them.
Keep on driveling, me bucko, with every word you strengthen my case.
You cannot beat the “Mighty Reaper!”
PS.Is there any truth in the rumour that the Pythons are reuniting to
do the “Life of Nima?”
NUR
> NUR wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 2:04 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
> > > you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
> > > begging people to sue you.
>
> > Bad, transparent sleight of hand, Dead Weed. The point is that whereas
> > you got no mention whatsoever in that published diabtribe of Mullah
> > Momen's, both George Fleming and I did, not to mention Rachel Woodlock
> > (another individual you royally screwed). And the AO-holes know that
> > whether I sue them or they sue me, either way the outcome will be
> > exactly the same and their worlds will be rocked!
>
> > > I think that Momen got sound legal and other advice not to mention me
> > > at all. Unlike you Nima, the local AO know that I'm not only prepared
> > > but do resort to Court when I have a case.
>
> > You are a nobody, Dermod: A senile, wasted, has-been clown on an ego-
> > trip of nonexistent self-importance where no one other than a bunch of
> > wasted pub crawlers on the AOnion take like yourself remotely take you
> > seriously, is what you are, viz. the object of the wee leperchauns in
> > your head. John Woodlock told you this fair and square, and as matter
> > factly as it could be put, back in early 2001 on Zuhur19 itself.
>
> I don't recall John Woodlock saying this on Zuhur.
You weren't on Zuhur when John Woodlock said it, and furthemore your
memory is only as good as what you are instructed to remember by your
BIA superiors, kiddie fiddler.
> Similarly, you didn't like it when Eric Stetson got over his anger at
> the Baha'is and moved on,
But not he seems to have moved back and has started his own Neo-
Unitarian Bahai pro-Muhammad Ali sect. I was right to point out the
flackiness of Flackius Stetsonius then as I have been about the fact
that you are a lackey of the system
> Dermod says that what's brought him back to post here is that he's
> received new evidence about the game that's REALLY going on behind
> your scorched-earth efforts to dominate debate at this site.
Dermod is full of shit, as you are, and if he had any evidence he
would've posted it by now, kiddie fiddler. He has nothing just as you
can't prove your identity is not the Gravenhurst pedophile.
> Hmm. And what do you think, these days, about the Marshalls, Juan
> Cole, your former letter of the living Starr*, Eric Stetson, William
> Pleasant etc?
I still believe they are all a bunch of creeps!
> According to YOU, they were all secretly working for the AO, and now
> Dermod is too.
And they were, and they are, as are you!
> Or is it more likely that they all weren't secretly working for the
> AO, but you were?
Again, weren't you the one, kiddie fiddler, who was most outspoken
here last year about me being an agent of the Islamic republic? Answer
this post, if you dare:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/2e6bf24392cd6971
NUR
wrote:
> Exactly … I’m only here for the craic and to put a little excitement
> into my life.
No, you're not. You're here as a longstanding agent provocateur of the
Baha'i Internet Agency, and the prima facie evidence is irrefutable.
To wit,
From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
> … I know how to play poker …
No, you don't. If you knew how to play, you wouldn't be here proving
that you aren't a poker player, but a poker face!
> Would that not include Azalis?
No, it wouldn't because Bayanis don't subscribe to some contrived
covenant of Husayn 'Ali Nari. Show me one instance where your masters
have declared someone a CB for being a Bayani? To us, you Baha'is are
the CBs. To me you are the embodiments of hell and as such deserve
whatever misfortune has come your collective ways!
> I understand that there is no formal penalty for apostasy within
> Bahaism , unlike Islam.
You understand wrong since there is no explicit scriptural detail on
penalty or not. But whatever the penalty, the effect is exactly the
same.
> I thought that was one of the modifications
> that had been made. So apostate is an empty title that merely informs
> the BIGS that you’re not a nice person. It’s not unlike the informal
> title of “undeclared CB” or “as bad as a CB” that is much utilized
> within the community to protect it from adverse influences. Many have
> been granted that status including moi.
Bullshit! You have not been declared an apostate. You were not even on
Momen's short-list, a list provided directly by the UHJ, your masters.
>You’re only a beginner!
This is a transparent expressionism of sour grapes on your part as
clear as the noon day sun since I have taken your self-proclaimed
seniority and shat all over it, and you know this too!
> So your family remains within the fold despite the shame of including
> an apostate within its ranks.
The extended family, not the immediate. I made that pretty clear in
the last post, Dead Weed. Do remember I read you like a book and that
you can't get away with anything here.
> I would have thought that if the family
> supported you the money supply to the AO (which you note continues to
> flow) would have dried up. If they’re as heavily generous with the
> dosh, as you say they’d have the influence …
And if I was declared, the dosh to your masters would have immediately
dried up. But, hey, if the UHJ wants to up the ante and declare me, by
all means, have at it. I don't associate with Baha'is in any case so
being declared a covenant breaker by a cult actually makes my case
further for me. G'head, I dare you, universal house of pancakes...
> I have seen it noted that your mother thinks you are a menace to
> society.
Where? This was a claim made by Starr Saffa, which as I noted before,
as you, is serving the system and is a BIA agent. If you have evidence
of this, like the evidence you onced claimed I was an agent of the IRI
and now the AO-holes, then by all means produce it. But whoever said,
they were also right: I am an absolute menace to the society of scum
like you and the organization you serve!
>Might this lead one to conclude that perhaps your family is
> well content to be rid of and has disposed of you, preferring and
> funding the AO instead, which would undoubtedly be to their advantage
> but not to ours?
It would be a conclusion where it not for the fact that they no longer
consider themselves to be Baha'is in any shpae and form (I saw to
that!) and so have explicitly stated so in legal documents, such as
their Wills. So, sorry to disappoint your masters on the Hill of Doom,
attempts to drive further wedges in our family (as you concertedly
tried before) ain't gonna work, and the thing is also this: this is
precisely the angle that the courts and the media in this country (and
elsewhere) would simply love to steam roll your organization with. So
keep these ones coming...
But still you have not explained: if you are an apostate and a bad,
bad individual to the Bahaim, why is your wife, Paula Ryder, still on
the rolls and considered a BIGS. I heard through the grapevine that
until recently she was a member of an LSA or a Regional Council over
there.
> I think your sister may have to explain why she breached her
> professional duty of counsel/ client confidentiality and conveyed to
> you information that would seem to be legally privileged.
Because she was a volunteer and under no such obligation.
> In this
> jurisdiction that would amount to professional misconduct and lead to
> disciplinary proceedings. I would think that if the statement you
> have were to be proven in the course of such proceedings, your sister
> would face the very real peril of being disbarred from practice.
And I believe that you are making a threat here against my family (and
my sister specifically) through your masters in the Bahai Internet
Agency, so you might want to craft your argument on behalf of your
masters a little more carefully, lest you personally be hauled before
a judge yourself on a criminal charge, since her reach to your
leperchaun neck is a lot closer than mine.
> OMG! You triumphed and got an article put on Sourcewatch! Trebles all
> round!
You don't get it, do you? Fine with me...
> It doesn’t say a lot … does it! Whilst reading it I was doing a
> mental comparison between the BF (as per Sourcewatch) and
> theTeletubbies and guess what … your article made the Teletubbies look
> like a bunch of international terrorists!
This is transparent bullshit and typical sour-grapes from you while
further reinforcing the fact that you are an agent of the Bahai
Internet Agency.
<big bs snip>
> PS.Is there any truth in the rumour that the Pythons are reuniting to
> do the “Life of Nima?”
No, but I hear there is a script called Wee Leperchauns in the
Finnegans Wake that is apparently in pre-production at a Craggy
Island. There is a character in it like the golem in Lord of the
Rings, and it's apparently being played by you!
Now the evidence? Where is it? And why aren't you attempting a
coherent response to this thread here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/2e6bf24392cd6971
Non-Bahais see,
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
Finnegan's Wake
>
> > I don't recall John Woodlock saying this on Zuhur.
>
> You weren't on Zuhur when John Woodlock said it, and furthemore your
> memory is only as good as what you are instructed to remember by your
> BIA superiors, kiddie fiddler.
A bit like yours then, kiddie fiddler.
> > Similarly, you didn't like it when Eric Stetson got over his anger at
> > the Baha'is and moved on,
>
> But not he seems to have moved back and has started his own Neo-
> Unitarian Bahai pro-Muhammad Ali sect. I was right to point out the
> flackiness of Flackius Stetsonius then as I have been about the fact
> that you are a lackey of the system
You're always right even when you aren't!
> > Dermod says that what's brought him back to post here is that he's
> > received new evidence about the game that's REALLY going on behind
> > your scorched-earth efforts to dominate debate at this site.
>
> Dermod is full of shit, as you are, and if he had any evidence he
> would've posted it by now, kiddie fiddler
Wake up and smell the coffee - the evidence is all around. You may
fool yourself but nobody else for your activities serve only the
interests of the High Fans.There's nothing new in the document of any
great significance that adds to the wealth of evidence that is patent.
It simply confirms (though you are only identified by a codename) you
work for the High Fans; that your current mission assignment is to
shut down TRB and that you are managed by a handler who reports higher
up the chain to the person who seems to control the whole "Special
Projects" unit and has, for the protection of his identity the
codename MOTH. We have able to identify some BIGS who are connected to
the project and their respective remits. But there's no doubt you are
the centre of the main project and the most successful.
. He has nothing just as you
> can't prove your identity is not the Gravenhurst pedophile.
Well diddums, your track record on proof is very scanty in fact non-
existent. Do you clearly understand what the word means?
>
> > Hmm. And what do you think, these days, about the Marshalls, Juan
> > Cole, your former letter of the living Starr*, Eric Stetson, William
> > Pleasant etc?
>
> I still believe they are all a bunch of creeps!
>
> > According to YOU, they were all secretly working for the AO, and now
> > Dermod is too.
>
> And they were, and they are, as are you!
And to think of all the times they fooled you into thinking they
didn't work for the AO. How blind you were ... shoulda gone to
Specsavers.
>
> > Or is it more likely that they all weren't secretly working for the
> > AO, but you were?
>
> Again, weren't you the one, kiddie fiddler, who was most outspoken
> here last year about me being an agent of the Islamic republic?
Well ... he'll not be accusing you of that again. It's now completely
clear who you work for and it ain't the IRI.
NUR
> NUR wrote:
>
> > > It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
> > > which you proved it is.
>
> > This, here, makes Haifan Bahaism reasonable to NO ONE:
> >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith
>
> Of course it doesn't. You and May wrote it.
Yep, we did, and there is not a single sentence, item, dot or t in
that article that is unfactual, kiddie fiddler. You are always welcome
to show us any unfactual material, if you can. But behave yourself
over there otherwise we'll throw you out on your ear hard as we did
the last time.
NUR
> No. It's an assertion. Can you prove it's not true?
No, it's not an assertion, and yes I can prove it's not true since my
record of over ten years and the various declarations of the system
proves it.
But here's where you fools think that innuendo is an actual argument.
Dermod has no specified exactly how the AO would benefit by my
activities. He makes typical Bahai innuendo arguments but is mighty
short on actual substance, like you.
> I don't really see how a suspicion that the AO benefits from your
> activities, and that Dermod has come across some information that the
> High Fans have got you doing their dirty work counts as an "argument
> by numbers" -
Then he should explain in lengthy detail how this can possibly be the
case given my extensive record and also given how earlier both you and
he were asserting that I was an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
not to mention your periodic assertions that I am crazy. Your
geneology of innuendo narratives simply doesn't add up, Palu. It is
rather an indication of scraping the bottom of the barrel and being
desperate for a angle (which you don't have and which from this point
on you will never get since you have fully shown your hand now to be
an agent of the BIA as I claim).
Now about the following below, where's your attempt to refute it with
evidence? Hmmm, kiddie fiddler....
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Wake up and smell the coffee - the evidence is all around.
Well, then, delineate it, explain it, detail it. Go ahead.
>You may
> fool yourself but nobody else for your activities serve only the
> interests of the High Fans.
;-)
From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
You were saying...
>There's nothing new in the document of any
> great significance that adds to the wealth of evidence that is patent.
Doesn't matter, post it anyway. I insist.
> It simply confirms (though you are only identified by a codename) you
> work for the High Fans;
Then post it. What do you have to lose?
From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
-
>that your current mission assignment is to
> shut down TRB and that you are managed by a handler who reports higher
> up the chain to the person who seems to control the whole "Special
> Projects" unit and has, for the protection of his identity the
> codename MOTH.
You make a terrible fiction writer, Dead Weed, and an even worse LIAR:
From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
method.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
-
>We have able to identify some BIGS who are connected to
> the project and their respective remits. But there's no doubt you are
> the centre of the main project and the most successful.
You have nothing.
> . He has nothing just as you
>
> > can't prove your identity is not the Gravenhurst pedophile.
>
> Well diddums, your track record on proof is very scanty in fact non-
> existent.
It's a lot better than yours, whatever it is, Dead Weed, and you know
it too:
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
> Do you clearly understand what the word means?
Do I give a flying fuck?
> And to think of all the times they fooled you into thinking they
> didn't work for the AO.
WTF are you talking about, Dead Weed? Do your senile, incoherent,
leperchauns-in-the-head ramblings even make any sense to you?
> Well ... he'll not be accusing you of that again. It's now completely
> clear who you work for and it ain't the IRI.
Good. It appears that the criminal liability attached in that specific
accusation made by your organization has finally been brought home.
Doesn't matter though, you made it, and now you are very badly
backtracking from it with this crappola. Courts and the media are not
going to look too kindly at this, Dead Weed. Your masters in the BIA
and on the Hill of Doom are going to be made to look pretty stupid at
the end of all this, as you are right now.
NUR
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:38 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 2:04 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You have threatened Court action so many times that everybody knows
> > > you're bull-shitting. You've now reached the ludicrous stage of
> > > begging people to sue you.
>
> > Bad, transparent sleight of hand, Dead Weed. The point is that whereas
> > you got no mention whatsoever in that published diabtribe of Mullah
> > Momen's, both George Fleming and I did, not to mention Rachel Woodlock
> > (another individual you royally screwed). And the AO-holes know that
> > whether I sue them or they sue me, either way the outcome will be
> > exactly the same and their worlds will be rocked!
>
> So you have reached stalemate with the AO –
No, I now have the upper hand, as you are quite well aware ;-)
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 1:52 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I don't recall John Woodlock saying this on Zuhur.
>
> > You weren't on Zuhur when John Woodlock said it, and furthemore your
> > memory is only as good as what you are instructed to remember by your
> > BIA superiors, kiddie fiddler.
>
> A bit like yours then, kiddie fiddler.
Unlikely, kiddie fiddler, especially since all the evidence is being
presented by me here whereas you have offered nothing but senile,
fantasy rants indicative of sour grapes and diminishing angles.
NUR
On Feb 21, 9:58 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Well, you see, we have this juicy document, which could wait …
You have nothing.
>but I
> have a heavy meet next week with a bunch of dorks and I needed a
> little match practice. I thought of you first …
You have nothing, and you have no meetings needing match practice. You
are a retired, has-been buffoon living on a government welfare pension
taking care of a disabled child. You never leave the house nor does
anyone other than the wee leperchauns in your head talk to you. You
are a nobody!
> Now that’s my line … no more plagiarism from you!
You have no line.
> >The Marshalls couldn't stand you and said so on numerous
> > occasions.
>
> To anybody I know?
Yep, to you and your face, for starters!
> But I’d think they’d prefer me to you … anybody with brains would …
> don’tcha agree?
>
> > Juan Cole outright believed you were a mole for the system
> > and said as much to me point blank a couple of times, which I didn't
> > at the time heed or pay attention to.
>
> Did he indeed … and to think you missed it! Well, as other posts have
> pointed out – you’re not exactly over-endowed with insight.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you proved yourself
otherwise. In retrospect Juan was spot-on correct about you. You were
the mole the whole time as was Hammond.
> In fact have you not heaped opprobrium on Juan The Man for, inter
> alia, refusing to back your manifestationnness ?
No. My falling out with Cole had to do with completely different
issues. It had to do with his core intellectual dishonesty over the
Bayani material.
> Could you trust the
> opinion of such a man on anything?
Yes, on that, one could. But how could one trust your opinion on
anything when for the past 8 years you have done absolutely, nothing,
fuck-all but act the bull dog for the AO-holes being no more than a
male version of Susan Maneck.
> there’s plenty more including lotsa ROFLMAO from Nima Hazini Esq.
Then post it. What's taking you so long? You don't have anything and
that's your problem here. I have solid dirt on you, like for instance
a recording of a phone conversation you and I had in 2000 where you
clearly confess to having connections to the Irish Republican Army
(IRA), and sundry other interesting tidbits.
> Ya see dear boy, when I came online I committed some terrible outrages
> that an inferior like you could never have dreamt up in the first
> place(you lack originality)and that nobody else had the cajones to do.
Like what? BNW. Your arrogance and pomposity has made you blind, Dead
Weed. That whole thing was neither here nor there. And when you first
came online, I wheeled your sorry fenian ass online, old man! It was I
who was posting your first messages here on TRB against Rick Schaut.
Or is your head so far up your senile jackass that you don't remember?
> Within my first year my “special projects” had sent two fundie loonies
> on gardening leave.
Big deal and who cares!
> And guess what. Diddums, I got a lot of help,
> advice and assistance from folks you state thought of me only as a
> buffoon.
It is probably as a result of such incidents that they thought you a
buffoon from thereafter, and probably still do. I know Alison did.
> And you weren’t included in the circle of trust for a number
> of the “special projects” –
I was not remotely interested in joining your "special projects" or
being amongst your...LOL...circle of trust (a central component of
whom, Rachel Woodlock, you lost pretty quickly anyway) which is why I
turned both you and Rachel down on joining the BNW skit project. It
was a waste of time and it was obvious you were on a personal ego-trip
of your won self-aggrandizement!
>indeed some of them I still can’t reveal
> or talk about openly – because, quite honestly, you didn’t have what
> it took to support them.
LOL! Hot air! Baloney!! Pub crawl rants by wee leperchauns in
Dead_Weeds head!
> Keep on driveling, me bucko, with every word you strengthen my case.
> You cannot beat the “Mighty Reaper!”
You are already beat Dead_Weed. Why else would you be here after 18
months trying to prove yourself otherwise? I know why: you can't let
go of the fact that on content I have kicked your ass again and again
and again, taken one of your best friend's scalps here publicly (viz.
Pat Kohli), and so brought your empty almightiness and self-delusions
crash tumbling down, which is why the Black Knight of Monty Python's
Holy Grail also becomes you very well.
Non-Baha'is see,
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:58 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Exactly … I’m only here for the craic and to put a little excitement
> > into my life.
>
> No, you're not. You're here as a longstanding agent provocateur of the
> Baha'i Internet Agency, and the prima facie evidence is irrefutable.
> To wit,
>
> From author Dermod Ryder (Asparagus)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
> thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
> lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
>
>
> The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
> attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed and
> behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
> destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies.
>
> Advocating a nuclear preemptive strike against Iran:
> A better reason for a pre-emptive nuclear attack we have yet to see.
> The removal of 78 million plus 2 mental defectives from the planet
> would be a mighty blessing and nuclear is obviously the most economic
> method.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
> thread/a932e8641bd58d85/92c8eee257d6e5c5
>
Sorry, but these old posts from Dermod (in one of which he was
pretending to be Asparagus) don't appear to prove anything. let alone
anything "irrefutable"
But, as is well known, a ganch like you uses the word "irrefutable" to
strengthen evidence that you know yourself to be dodgy.
Smoother operators like Tony Blair were in the habit of dropping words
rather than adding them to unsound information - it's a better
technique, because it's less detectable - you have to get access to
the rough drafts to detect the missing words!
> > … I know how to play poker …
>
> No, you don't. If you knew how to play, you wouldn't be here proving
> that you aren't a poker player, but a poker face!
>
Oh, explain this one again, then.
What's the difference between a Royal Flush and a Full House?
It's really not a good idea to pretend to expertise in some area, then
make a bunch of easily verifiable basic mistakes!
Paul
PaulHammond
That's also a lie.
I believe the statement that was being made last year was that Nima
was happy to parrot lines and arguments of the IRI, while at the same
time purporting to be against everything they stand for.
But, of course, Nima's brain would easily be able to detect the nuance
between accusing someone of parroting specious arguments from
untrustworthy sources, and actually being a paid up agent of said
sources.
But, as you say, if there's new evidence about who's REALLY running
the Nima show, I'm happy to consider it.
PaulHammond
I don't. I am here limiting myself to commenting on the statement you
made about me, which I reject, and the way you have tried to pretend
that you said something different.
> Where I stepped in my point of contention was
> with Wake on his use of the term 'Azali' and his abuse of Bayani
> faith.
> In every single thread I have had discussion when you got involved,
> you were intent on attacking sometimes without even knowing anything
> about the matter.
> As far as I am concerned you are here to blindly defend Bahais.
>
That, as I said before, is simply an example of your prejudice about
me, which you've gotten by paying too much attention to Nima's smears.
> > > I don't follow Nima or anybody else.You should have the integrity to
> > > agree with a sound argument, remain silent, or refute it with solid
> > > reasons.
> >
> > I do have such integrity. I attacked your most recent argument on the
> > grounds that it was based on a weak, and almost definitely false
> > premise. You have retorted by attacking me on the basis of my
> > personality and the fact that you find Nima's lies about me more
> > palatable than the truth
>
> You have some guts!
Indeed I do. I only wish you did. Kindly have the guts to make your
own decisions, and don't blindly follow Nima's smear campaigns.
> You don't have the least integrity!
> There was nothing simpler and undeniable than the points I made about
> that stupid article.
Shame you couldn't work up an argument that didn't rely on false
premises and inferring positive statements from omissions then, isn't
it!
It's hardly my fault that you're such a bad debater, is it?
> If you were not there just to attack no matter what you would have
> either remained silent or agreed with me.
Steve, I hate to see poor arguments based on bad premises. It must be
my mathematical training, I suppose!
Why should I keep quiet just because it annoys you to have your poor
argumentative skills pointed out? This is a free and open forum!
> But instead you could not
> refute the errors but you did offer guessing on behalf of the poster.
Bullshit! I told you exactly why your arguments were poor.
The fact that there are other explanations for a website to omit facts
which you think are important is an integral part of showing that
you'd argued from a false premise.
Your argument could only hold if the interpretation YOU made of the
reasons why Darrick (a non-Baha'i!) was omitting certain things from
his website was the ONLY POSSIBLE ONE. The fact is that it wasn't.
> Again, you are dragging Nima into this. You are inflicted with
> paranoia.
You can't seriously argue that Nima ISN'T out to get me?
But, really, I'd prefer it if you made your own mind up about me,
rather than so easily buying into his lies because it's more
convenient for you. His association with your Bayani faith doesn't do
you any favours, you know.
> There was no attack. I stated my views about the role you have played
> in this forum as far as I am concerned.
I consider that the statements you have made about my prejudiced
attitude to Bayanis, and your speculations about my reasons to be here
to be lies - and insulting lies at that!
I do not like people to attack me personally because they can't stand
the way I've argued against them!
> >
> > To me, that makes you one of Nima's followers. You really ought to
> > make up your own mind, didn't you?
>
> I took your word for not being formally a Bahai, despite over-actively
> defending their psoitions.
No you didn't! You made innuendoes in brackets that showed you really
believe what Nima says.
You are a coward! When challenged, you try to pretend that you have
respected my position, when really you've just happily believe in any
lies Nima wants to smear me with.
Grow a pair!
> My posts are my proof that I independently form my views. But you
> don't have the integrity to accept that. That is part of your line of
> attack.
>
Your posts prove what I have said about you - you have no integrity.
As soon as you are challenged, you pretend you didn't say what you did
say. You just did it again in this very thread.
> >
> > > You exhibit none of these.
> > > Now, you do know well that I could not care less if you criticise
> > > Bahais when it comes to for example gay marriage,
> >
> > I know. I recalled, after I'd done it, that you considered support
> > for gay marriage an example of western decadence.
>
> That was the sort of thing you were criticizing Bahais for,
> coincidentally the opposition to homosexuality is a principal that was
> set from much earlier and recently in Islam.
> But I am not going there, this is a different topic.
>
> >
> > Seeing as how you have that DIRECT experience of me disagreeing with
> > one of the Baha'i Beliefs that you say I come here to support, you
> > ought to have the honesty to admit that you were wrong when you said
> > that I am here as a Baha'i propagandist.
>
> You are trying to get me on stupid technicality.
I don't think that support for Gay human rights is a stupid
technicality!
I am NO Baha'i propagandist - that's Nima's line on me which you are
blindly following when you should know better!
> Read what I said about what earlier religions had said about
> homosexuality.
I don't believe in any religions - especially when they pretend to
justify prejudice against our fellow human beings!
> As far as I am concerned you are here to defend Bahai positions at any
> cost.
>
Well, how do you square that convenient conviction of yours that I'm
guilty of whatever you say I am with the fact that I support gay
rights, which is NOT a Baha'i position.
Your belief amounts to an insistence to ignore any inconvenient
evidence which doesn't tally with the prejudice against me you are
determined to maintain!
> >
> > You've got personal experience of me disagreeing with Baha'i teachings
> > - so you should know better than to follow Nima's lead blindly.
> >
> > etc. I have raised
> >
> Read what I said earlier.
>
Why? You haven't explained how I can both and Baha'i propagandist,
and an ardent supporter of gay human rights, and an atheist at the
same time.
My position on Bayani vs Bahai is pretty much identical with Dermods,
no-one outside those faiths particularly cares much about the details
of who said what when in the 1850s and 60s.
> > > many issues questioning the truth of the Bahai claim,
> >
> > Well, I can help you out here. I believe the Baha'i claims to be
> > untrue.
> >
> > As they reckon Baha'u'llah is a "Manifestation of God", and I reckon
> > that God does not exist.
> >
> > It follows, that I reckon Baha'u'llah's claim to be untrue.
> >
> > I reckon he, and the Baha'is are sincere in believing it to be true,
> > though - as I reckon that you belief in the Bab is sincere.
> >
> > But neither world view is really for me.
> >
>
> As far as I am concerned you are here to defend Bahai positions.
As you will, apparently, continue to maintain even in the face of the
evidence. It's clear that you are determined to indulge an irrational
hatred of me, and there is little further to be gained by trying to
appeal to your reason.
> Now, the thing I was hopping you get was that being a Bayani, my
> topics have been dealing with the validity of the truth of Bahai claim
> in respecto the religion of Bayan.
If you want me to understand that statement you will have to recast it
into recognisable English.
As I've just stated, I believe that both the Bayani and the Baha'i
religions are untrue.
But I believe that yourself, the Baha'is and Baha'u'llah were all
sincere in their beliefs.
I reckon that the Baha'i view is AS true as the Bayani.
Of course, that's easy for me to say from a position where I think
they were all wrong, and since there IS no God, neither Baha'u'llah,
nor the Bab were REALLY getting revelations from that imaginary being.
> And, everytime I did that I did not have a Bahai to defend it with
> argument, I had you defending it with no aqrgument.
>
The BIGS have mostly been banished from this site by Nima's scorched-
earth policy of running smear campaigns against virtually anyone who
comes here and says the slightest positive thing about Baha'is.
>
> > >and I think you
> > > came forward in majority of them, such as the latest debacle of yours.
> >
> > It's your opinion that my latest attempt to debate you was a
> > "debacle".
> >
> > For me, it's pretty clear that you were arguing from a false premise,
> > and THAT is a weak argument.
>
> False premise! You have no idea what you are talking about.
A premise is the first clause of an argument, which you then infer
something from.
For example, 2+2=4, or the moon is made of green cheese.
A false premise is a first clause that is untrue (like, the moon is
made of green cheese, or 2+2=5)
Mathematically, and logically speaking, from ANY false first premise
you can argue anything
For instance, "if the moon is made of green cheese then rabbits eat
cats for breakfast" actually turns out to be a TRUE statement
according to first order mathematical logic (look at the third line of
the truth table for implication - F T implies T). The ONLY line
that ends in an implication being FALSE is the second line, where
someone attempts to derive a false implication from a true premise.
But, such implications from false premises are valueless. This is one
of the reasons why mathematicians sometimes attempt to disprove a
statement by trying to derive both P and not-P from that statement
(aka a "contradiction") - because if you can do this, the conclusion
must be that the original statement is false - for a false statement
is the only statement that could legitimately lead both to one thing
and its opposite.
Your argument, depending as it did on a WEAK first premise (the fact
that these people missed out thus and so, MUST mean that these people
think so and thus, and therefore) means that everything you asserted,
based on that unlikely to be true first statement, was not going to
get you anywhere - because that first statement was so likely to be
false!
Arguing a positive set of beliefs from the fact that some person
omitted some facts from their website is a fools argument - there are
much stronger criticism that can and should be made!
> My premise is the book from which Bahais could not have trasngresed as
> far as the promised one is concerned.
Again, you'll have to rephrase that into understandable English if you
wish to communicate your point.
> You still have not had the guts to agree with me that the material
> that was posted had serious omission and distortion.
On the contrary, my very first post to you suggested that while your
argument was weak, there were much stronger arguments that could be
made - and I believe I suggested a couple of criticisms that *I* might
have made. But you were too quick to jump all over me an attack me as
being "Paul Hammond posting on trb and therefore lying as a matter of
course" to notice that.
> Wake at least had
> some thought as to what the motivation for teh omission could have
> been. But you were simply apologizing for the poster .
>
You didn't read my posts properly if that's ALL you saw. Dermod was
amplyfying what I was saying - his talk about "advertising a brand"
took the lead from MY comment that it "wasn't the Baha'is job to make
the Bayanis look good"
And I certainly don't hold any brief for defending Darrick Evenson,
possibly one of the very few posters around here that has been MORE
poisonous towards me personally than Nima while I've been posting on
this site!
> >
> > This is all I pointed out. Apparently, that's been a good enough
> > excuse for you to try to get personal with me.
> There is nothing personal here, you are getting paranoid here. I
> commented on your role here on trb.
>
Oh no, of course there's not! Suggesting that merely because of who I
am my posts should be safely ignored by anyone who doesn't want a
party line is not at ALL an ad hominem attack!
You mentioned MY NAME in this thread. When you were talking about
something else entirely. As if my name was a byword for lying! That
was what first got my notice.
> >
> > I ask you not to continue to peddle Nima's rumours about me when you
> > know from your personal experience of me that much of what he says
> > about me is just total tosh. That's not too much to ask of you, is
> > it?
> You have no proof that my views are not my own.
I have the evidence of my own eyes that you follow him blindly.
> You should have a recollection of my encounters with you and I am
> well positioned to form my view about your role here.
>
Shame you don't use your recollection of my encounters with you to
think for yourself then! Don't blindly follow Nima - you're capable
of better than that!
> >
> > > So, don't tire yourself splitting hair, you know exactly what I said.
> >
> > Most of the time, what you have said is unclear, or you change it when
> > challenged.
>
> Most of the time, you have no argument when you step in to defend
> Bahai positions when I question their validity in respect to Bayan.
> You simply lack the familiarity with the Bayanic literature and its
> history. Most likely, you have now learned quite few things about what
> Bayanis think about some of those Bahai claims.
> That is where you try to divert to all different directions, pretend
> things don't make sense to you,
I never "pretend" that things don't make sense to me. Whenever I ask
for your clarification, I genuinely can't understand what point it is
that you are trying to make.
> ask for repeat of answer over and
> over, make guess, hypothesize, et. etc.
>
> >
> > > As far as I am concerned, you are here to defend Bahai positions at
> > > any cost.
> >
> > That is a lie. You ought to have better judgement than to believe or
> > peddle such lies at the behest of an old smear-merchant like Nima.
> > Grow a pair of balls, Steve, and start to make your own decisions for
> > a change!
>
> I don't have to repeat myself.
>
No. You simply have to behave better in future.
> >
> > > > > You have made up yourind before joining a thread that I am going to
> > > > > disagree with this guy no matter what he has to say.
> >
> > > > That is not a fact. I'm sorry if it's your perception.
> >
> > > > I have no animus against Bayanis, just against Nima for running a
> > > > smear campaign against me here for a very long time.
> >
> > > I am no saying you have a hatred towards Bayanis.
> >
> > Although, that WAS what you just said in the previous post:
> >
> > "I said you were a staunch supporter of
> > baha'is who is not prepared to accept an anti Bahai position coming
> > from a bayani."
> >
> > Maybe you'd better get it clear in your head what, exactly, you do
> > want to say about me in future?
>
> I am very clear, you pretend ignorance. You know what I have been
> arguing for.
> If you think you have got it now, how about denying it?
>
Well, what DO you want to say about me?
> >
> > >The fact that you
> > > are not prepared to accept a simple fact such and try to divert the
> > > debate to all sort of directions indicates to me that you did not join
> > > to find the truth of the matter, you joined because your preference is
> > > not to see the Bahai side to be proven false in particular when the
> > > other side rejects the Bahaism entirely.
> > > I am not going to hypotheseize about your motivations (though I can
> > > guess), they would be irrelevant.
> >
> > Why stop now when you've been doing nothing but hypothesise about my
> > motivations since you started joining Nima's smear-chorus against me?
> >
> > Believers, eh? All a bunch of hypocrites!
>
> You are still hung up on Nima. Stop thinking of him.
I submit that it's YOU that are hung up on Nima. I wish YOU would
stop believing in him.
In this point, however, this is meant to be slightly lighthearted.
But, really, you have just told me that I only "pretend" to
misunderstand you when your English is unclear.
You ARE aware that that is calling me a liar, aren't you?
And yet you try to take the moral high ground and suggest that YOU
don't "hypothesise" about my motives!
> Tell me! In the latest encounter with you, did you agree with me that
> there was in fact an omission in the posted article or not?
> Did you agree with me that the quoted prophecies from Iqan were
> produced by Husayn-Ali to support the Point of Bayan not to support
> Husayn-Ali's claim?
> No you didn't.
No, because I don't really understand what relevance whether I do or
do not confirm these points has to the fact that you were trying to
hypothesise the state of mind of the author of some website, and
indeed of all Baha'is, from the fact that there was very little or no
mention of the Bab in one website.
> Did you prove that there was no omission and the quoted prophecies
> were in fact to support the Bahai claim?
> No you didn't.
> What did you do?
> You guessed and apologized for the poster.
>
No, I fucking well did not! Please STOP guessing and hypothesising
about MY motives - you are not a mind-reader.
For me, it's the fact that you attempt to mind-read the motivation of
the person who produced a website you didn't like in the first place
that led to you making such a weak argument in your attempts to
criticise that site!
Paul
PaulHammond
> On Feb 21, 1:18 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > NUR wrote:
>
> > > > It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
> > > > which you proved it is.
>
> > > This, here, makes Haifan Bahaism reasonable to NO ONE:
> > >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith
>
> > Of course it doesn't. You and May wrote it.
>
> Yep, we did, and there is not a single sentence, item, dot or t in
> that article that is unfactual, kiddie fiddler. You are always welcome
> to show us any unfactual material, if you can. But behave yourself
> over there otherwise we'll throw you out on your ear hard as we did
> the last time.
You believe YOU threw me out last time I was over there?
ROTFLMAO!
What a self-deluding kiddie-fiddler you are!
CULT FAQhttp://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
PaulHammond
> On Feb 21, 1:00 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > No. It's an assertion. Can you prove it's not true?
>
> No, it's not an assertion,
It's definitely an assertion.
> and yes I can prove it's not true since my
> record of over ten years and the various declarations of the system
> proves it.
>
And THIS is another assertion - and as Nima has said in another
place- assertion is most definitely not proof.
Logic not really your strong point, is it Naughty Noo-Noo?
>
> > I don't really see how a suspicion that the AO benefits from your
> > activities, and that Dermod has come across some information that the
> > High Fans have got you doing their dirty work counts as an "argument
> > by numbers" -
>
> Then he should explain in lengthy detail how this can possibly be the
> case given my extensive record
But, how does this show that Dermod's accusation against you is an
"argument by numbers"?
It's not like having a vote about whether or not you work for the AO,
MOTH, is really going to decide the issue?
I do notice that your activity has got more and more desperate since
Dermod started to tell you he HAS got hold of a document that might
compromise your position.
> and also given how earlier both you and
> he were asserting that I was an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
That's not an assertion I ever made.
> not to mention your periodic assertions that I am crazy. Your
> geneology of innuendo narratives simply doesn't add up, Palu.
Well, pot, kettle, black.
Earlier on, you found some stuff dating from my real association with
Keele university. Then you found some stuff associated with a Dr
Peter Hammond, of Keele University, who did take me for a couple of
practical lab sessions when I was doing a final year biology option
that involved his speciality of communications and Neuroscience. You
also found some stuff involving my real friends, Naz and Robert Ghanea-
Hercock (whose wedding I attended in 1992). Also some stuff
mentioning me when I was at Liverpool University the year after. (I
was there academic year 1993/4, doing an MSc in Mathematics)
Then you've found some random stuff about people called Paul Hammond
who aren't me.
Now finally, and because you think it's the juiciest scandal, you've
stuck with it, you've found a report about 58 year old Paul Richard
Hammond, who got a conviction for using child-porn.
Horrible, but not uncharacteristic, that you'd exploit such a terrible
crime for the sake of point-scoring in a usenet debate - but there you
go, it's what Nima does - he's done it before on several occasions (as
Dermod remembers, when the personal insults come out, there's no
holding back)
And you just keep asserting that we have to believe that you have
"researched" the whole of the south of the UK and since you cannot
find any other Paul Hammond I must be identical with this one (never
mind that two other people did better on a basic google search without
spending a penny, turning up, for example, a Paul Hammond who is a
plumber in Spalding, where many of my relatives still live, and a Paul
Hammond who entered a tennis competition in Basingstoke)
> It is
> rather an indication of scraping the bottom of the barrel and being
> desperate for a angle (which you don't have and which from this point
> on you will never get since you have fully shown your hand now to be
> an agent of the BIA as I claim).
>
> But here's where you fools think that innuendo
Well, HERE'S an example of smear and innuendo:
PaulHammond
> On Feb 21, 12:23 pm, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 1:52 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't recall John Woodlock saying this on Zuhur.
>
> > > You weren't on Zuhur when John Woodlock said it, and furthemore your
> > > memory is only as good as what you are instructed to remember by your
> > > BIA superiors, kiddie fiddler.
>
> > A bit like yours then, kiddie fiddler.
>
> Unlikely, kiddie fiddler, especially since all the evidence is being
> presented by me
WHAT evidence?
NUR
This one.
NUR
RICHARD Hammond, an academic, is the Gravenhurst pedophile?
http://www.genealogy.ams.org/id.php?id=104016
When all the evidence points to Paul ANDREW:
NUR
> On 21 Feb, 02:34, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 1:00 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > No. It's an assertion. Can you prove it's not true?
>
> > No, it's not an assertion,
>
> It's definitely an assertion.
Nope. It's an assertion supported by documentary proof which you
cannot seem to want to refute with documentation.
> > and yes I can prove it's not true since my
> > record of over ten years and the various declarations of the system
> > proves it.
>
> And THIS is another assertion - and as Nima has said in another
> place- assertion is most definitely not proof.
Well, then if you can prove your assertion that I am an agent of the
AO_holes - just as earlier I was supposed to be an agent of the IRI --
you can provide the evidence. Why are you people dragging your club
feet? Is it because you have no evidence because the available prima
facie evidence makes by assertion/position axiomatic whereas yours its
opposite? We should be told...
> Logic not really your strong point, is it Naughty Noo-Noo?
Neither is it yours as Steve, myself and others have proven over the
years.
> It's not like having a vote about whether or not you work for the AO,
> MOTH, is really going to decide the issue?
Well, provide the evidence. The fact is you people are desperate for
an angle when the evidence proves you yourself are exactly what you
accuse.
> I do notice that your activity has got more and more desperate since
> Dermod started to tell you he HAS got hold of a document that might
> compromise your position.
You notice wrong, as usual. What should be noticed is that your
masters in the BIA have become quite desperate since the anti-BIA
activities have gone up a notch. But, hey, any time Dead Weed wishes
to post any documentation, he is more than welcome to.
> That's not an assertion I ever made.
"Nima, you're more American and Australian
than Iranian, and yet you want the mullah's lies about Baha'is to be
true so desperately you make yourself an unpaid propaganda agent for
them!"
One of numerous examples.
Paalu wanna another cracker?
> > not to mention your periodic assertions that I am crazy. Your
> > geneology of innuendo narratives simply doesn't add up, Palu.
>
> Well, pot, kettle, black.
On the contrary, kettle, my narratives supported with evidence add up
whereas yours never have. So why are you saying Paul RICHARD Hammond,
an academic, is the Gravenhurst pedophile when all evidence currently
points to Paul ANDREW Hammond:
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174894130.html
Community order for internet pervert.
Biggleswade Chronicle (Biggleswade, England) | February 15, 2008
Former Gravenhurst man used the name Betty to access child porn.
An internet paedophile with a history of sex offences going back to
1969 has been given a three-year community order.
Paul Hammond, 57, had used the name "Betty" and "Betty Boop" while
collecting images from a smart group used by people distributing child
pornography.
Luton Crown Court heard that, as part of an operation started in 2005,
police obtained "Betty's" IP address and traced it to Hammond's then
home in Barton Road, Gravenhurst.
Prosecutor Simon Ash said officers raided the home in November ...
-
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-175132217.html
from Luton Crown Court
An internet paedophile with a history of sex offences going back to
1969 has been given a three-year community order.
Paul Hammond, 57, had used the name 'Betty' and 'Betty Boop' while
collecting images from a smart group used by people distributing child
pornography.
Luton Crown Court heard on Friday that, as part of an operation
started in 2005, police obtained 'Betty's' IP address and traced it to
Hammond's then home in Barton Road, Gravenhurst.
Prosecutor Simon Ash said officers raided the home in November 2006
and seized a laptop, ...
-
NUR
> On 21 Feb, 02:28, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 1:18 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > > NUR wrote:
>
> > > > > It makes the AO look reasonable ... if that is possible
> > > > > which you proved it is.
>
> > > > This, here, makes Haifan Bahaism reasonable to NO ONE:
> > > >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith
>
> > > Of course it doesn't. You and May wrote it.
>
> > Yep, we did, and there is not a single sentence, item, dot or t in
> > that article that is unfactual, kiddie fiddler. You are always welcome
> > to show us any unfactual material, if you can. But behave yourself
> > over there otherwise we'll throw you out on your ear hard as we did
> > the last time.
>
> You believe YOU threw me out last time I was over there?
Yep, we did, kiddie fiddler. Come back again and we'll reinforce it
for you.
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174894130.html
Community order for internet pervert.
Biggleswade Chronicle (Biggleswade, England) | February 15, 2008
Former Gravenhurst man used the name Betty to access child porn.
An internet paedophile with a history of sex offences going back to
1969 has been given a three-year community order.
Paul Hammond, 57, had used the name "Betty" and "Betty Boop" while
collecting images from a smart group used by people distributing child
pornography.
Luton Crown Court heard that, as part of an operation started in 2005,
police obtained "Betty's" IP address and traced it to Hammond's then
home in Barton Road, Gravenhurst.
Prosecutor Simon Ash said officers raided the home in November ...
-
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-175132217.html
from Luton Crown Court
See,
/
NUR
> Finnegan's Wake wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 1:52 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Or is it more likely that they all weren't secretly working for the
> > > > AO, but you were?
>
> > > Again, weren't you the one, kiddie fiddler, who was most outspoken
> > > here last year about me being an agent of the Islamic republic?
>
> > Well ... he'll not be accusing you of that again. It's now completely
> > clear who you work for and it ain't the IRI.
>
> That's also a lie.
No, it's fact. Lie is what you are and what you backpeddle. Your BS
under a thread entitled "confirmed agent of the IRI"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.culture.iranian/browse_thread/thread/1d91b65a29dfc7f0/ea6c8b39198bd4a8?lnk=gst&q=mash_ghasem+Islamic+republic+Paul+Hammond#ea6c8b39198bd4a8